om:92-cl-2015-aug — A Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere or re-apprise with the Disciplinary Proceedings of the Government Departments initiated against its employee unless the proceedings reveal prejudice to the charge-sheeted employee and the proceedings are devoid of natural justice

A Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere or re-apprise with the Disciplinary Proceedings of the Government Departments initiated against its employee unless the proceedings reveal prejudice to the charge-sheeted employee and the proceedings are devoid of natural justice — This chunk is about an Original Application (OA No. 2097 of 2010) filed to set aside a removal order issued against an employee by the Superintendent of Post Office and upheld by the Director of Post... — Facts: This OA is filed to set aside the impugned removal order, dated 3-1-2006 issued by the Superintendent of Post Office and upheld by the Director of Postal Services, Kolkata Region and for a further direction to the Respondents to pay all the arrears honorarium till the date of superannuation of the Applicant with 18% of interest. It is not necessary to go into the old cases against the Applicant and restrict the analysis only to the present case. After hearing both sides and perusal of record, the Tribunal held that the enquiry report was served on the Applicant through registered post. The charge-memo, dated 1-5-2000 was served on the Applicant and opportunity was given to him to either accept or deny. The Applicant denied all charges. The Applicant was also directed to submit written representation on the Inquiry Report within 10 days of time on receipt of the enquiry report. But the Applicant did not file any representation against the enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority considered each article of charge and also taken into account the preliminary hearing which took place in this case and finally came to the conclusion that the Applicant is guilty of charges. Hence he passed the penalty order of removal from service. The appeal of the Applicant was also disposed of by an order, dated 6-9-2010 considering each article of charge and other relevant records pertaining to this case and upheld the order of Disciplinary Authority. The Applicant, even though given sufficient time has not given any reply to the chargesheet. He also failed to submit representation against the finding of Enquiry Officer. In the case of Coal India Ltd v. Ananta Saha [ 2011 (5) SCC 142 ], it was held that, in case the delinquent does not participate or co-operate with the enquiry, ex parte enquiry held valid. Interference by Courts in disciplinary cases should be rare when the principle of natural justice is violated or the charge-sheeted employee did not get opportunity to state his case. In the case of Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar [ 2011 (10) SCC 249 ], the Apex Court held that Courts cannot re-appreciate the evidence to come to a different conclusion. In the case of State of U.P. v. J.P. Saraswat [ 2011 (4) SCC 545 ], it was held that judicial review in disciplinary cases is permissible where the punishment is disproportionate with the established charges or actuated by malice. In the instant case, after direction of Tribunal, the Respondents were having no other alternate except to complete the enquiry proceedings and decide the appeal. Hence it cannot be said that the Respondents acted illegally. Even though the Applicant was given enough opportunity, he himself chose not to file reply to enquiry report. The decision relied upon by the Applicant will not come to his rescue as those cases relied upon by the Applicant are in different type of cases not comparable to the present case.