Holding

The disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by improper charge framing, undue delay, and procedural irregularities, rendering the removal order unsustainable.

Summary

The appellant, a junior engineer, was charged with non‑maintenance of an ACE‑8 register and alleged failure to supervise copper‑wire work. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated five years after he handed over charge and continued for seven years, culminating in his removal from service. The enquiry officer treated the case as if the appellant had misappropriated copper wire, although no specific charge of theft or misutilisation was framed. The Supreme Court found that the charges were improperly framed, the enquiry officer’s findings were not commensurate with the charges, and the extreme delay prejudiced the officer, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities were set aside and the appeal was allowed, directing reinstatement with reduced back wages.

Issues considered

Whether disciplinary proceedings can be validly initiated after a delay of several years and continued for an extended period.
Whether the charges of misappropriation or misutilisation of copper wire were properly framed when the charge memo only mentioned non‑maintenance of the ACE‑8 register.
Whether the enquiry officer’s findings and the disciplinary authority’s reliance on matters not charged violate procedural fairness.
Whether the removal order can be sustained in the absence of specific charges and adequate evidence.

Subjects

disciplinary proceedingsservice lawprocedural fairnessdelay in enquirycharge framingquasi‑criminal natureremoval from servicejudicial review

Judgment

A M.V. BIJLANI
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

APRIL 5, 2006

B [S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.]

Service Law:

Disciplinary Proceedings-Conducting of on the issues on which no
C charges framed Propriety of-Employee allegedly failed and/or neglected to
maintain a register known as ACE-8 Register-Disciplinary proceedings
initiated against him, five years after he handed over charge, remained •
pending for seven years-The Enquiry Officer proceeded as if in the
departmental proceedings the employee was charged with misappropriation
D of property-Employee was removed from service-The appellate authority,
while dismissing the appeal flied by the employee, went into the question of
maintenance of muster roll and the diaries maintained on a day-to-day basis
although that was not the subject matter of the charge--The High Court also
proceeded on the basis that the non-maintenance of diary amounted to
E misutilization of copper wire-Held: It is true that the jurisdiction of the
court in judicial review is limited-Disciplinary proceedings, however, being
quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidences to prove the charge-
A serious charge could not have been enquired into without framing

F
appropriate charges--lnitiation of the disciplinary proceedings as also
continuance thereof after a long time evidently prejudiced the delinquent
officer-Hence, the orders of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate
--
authority cannot be sustained-Dismissal set aside-Judicial Review.

The appellant, a Junior Engineer, allegedly failed and/or neglected to
maintain a register known as ACE-8 Register. After he handed over charge
to his successor disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, which
G remained pending for a period of seven years. The appellant was directed to
be removed from service by the Disciplinary Authority. The appellate authority,
while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, went into the question of
maintenance of muster roll and the diaries maintained on a day-to-day basis
although that was not the subject matter of the charge. The Central

896
-j

M.V. BIJLAN!v. U.0.1. 897
Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original application filed by the A
appellant. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant
on the ground that there had been dereliction of duty which penetrated into
the arena of misutilization. The High Court rejected the contention of the
appellant that there had been a theft of copper wire, again relying upon the
report of the Enquiry Officer. Hence the appeal.
B
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. From a perusal of the Enquiry Report, it appears that the
disciplinary authorities proceeded on a wrong premise. The appellant was
principally charged for non-maintenance of ACE-8 Register. He was not
charged for theft or misappropriation of telegraph copper wire or misutilization C
thereof. If he was to be proceeded against for misutilization or misappropriation
le of the said copper wire, it was necessary for the disciplinary authority to frame
appropriate charges in that behalf. Charges were said to have been made after
receipt of a report from CBI (Anti-Corruption Bureau). It was, therefore,
expected that definite charges of misutilization/misappropriation of copper D
wire by the appellant would have been framed. The appellant, therefore, should
have been charged for defalcation or misutilization of the stores he had handled
if he was to be departmentally proceeded against on that basis. The second
charge shows that he had merely failed to supervise the working of the line.
There was no charge that he failed to account for the copper wire over which
he had physical control. [903-A, B, q E
1.2. The charges which were framed related to only non-maintenance
of ACE-8 Register and non-supervision of working of the line. In the absence
of any charge that the appellant had in fact misappropriated copper wire for
his own benefit out of the disposal thereof, the question as regards purported F
misconduct by way of mis utilization of copper wire could not have been gone
into. Furthermore, it has not been shown that ACE-8 Register was required
to be maintained in an appropriate form or in a particular manner i.e. in bound
form or in loose sheets. [903-D, E)

2. The Central Administrative Tribunal as also the High Court failed G
to take into consideration that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after
six years and it continued for a period of seven years and, thus, initiation of
the disciplinary proceedings as also continuance thereof after such a long
time evidently prejudiced the delinquent officer. 1903-G; 904-A)

H
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 3 S.C.R.

A State of MP. v. Bani Singh, [19901 Supp. sec 738, relied on.

3. It is really a matter of great surprise that a disciplinary proceeding
was initiated five years after the appellant handed over charge. At that time
he was admittedly not having possession of any documents. The Enquiry Officer
furthermore took a period of seven years to complete the enquiry. The
B appellate authority also took seven years in disposing of the appeal. Even then
the appellate authority did not go into the question as to whether the
procedures laid down for holding the disciplinary proceedings had been
followed or not. He did not go into the contentions of the Appellant minutely.
The memo of appeal filed by the appellant was very elaborate. He raised a
C number of contentions therein. The Enquiry Officer was charged with bias.
He was also charged with unfair conduct. He was said to have committed a
large number of irregularities in the departmental proceeding. The memo of
--
appeal of the Appellant was in about 65 typed pages. It was sub-divided into
five parts. He made all endeavours to deal with each and every finding of the
Enquiry Officer and dealt with almost all the documents relied upon by the
D department He also dealt with the deposition of the witness examined on behalf
of the parties. (904-E-H; 905-Al

4. The Enquiry Officer proceeded as if in the departmental proceedings
the appellant was charged with misappropriation of property. The witnesses
E not only spoke of theft of copper wire, but also stated about the existence of
muster roll diaries. [905-Af

5. While making the enquiry as against the appellant, the Enquiry
Officer made adverse comments about the correctness or otherwise of the
statements made by the witnesses examined on behalf of the department without
F assigning any reasons therefor. They were examined by the department. If
they deposed falsely, they should have been cross-examined. Only because their
evidence was totally against the department, the same per se would not mean
that they deposed falsely. (905-D, El

6. Evidently, the evidences recorded by the Enquiry Officer and
G inferences drawn by him were not commensurate with the charges. If it was
a case of misutilization or misappropriation, the appellant should have been
told thereabout specifically. Such a serious charge could not have been
enquired without framing appropriate charges. The charges are otherwise
vague. The High Court also proceeded on the basis that the non-maintenance
H of diary amounted to misutilization of copper wire. [906-D, El
M.V. BIJLANI v. U.O. I. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 899
7.1. It is true.that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is A
limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature,
there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in
a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial,
i.e. beyond all reasonable doubts one cannot lose sight of the fact,that the
Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function who upon analysing the
documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance B
of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While
doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot
refuse to consider the relevant fact. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He
cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of
surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which C
the delinquent officer had not been charged with. [906-G, H; 907-A]

7.2. The report of the Enquiry Officer suffers from the aforementioned
vices. The orders of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority
which are ba.sed on the said Enquiry Report, thus, cannot be sustained. Hence,
the impugned judgments are wholly unsustainable. [907-B, CJ D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 826712004.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26. I 1.2002 of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. No. I 889/2000.
E
Kailash Vasudev, Milanka Chaudhary and M.A. Chinnasamy for the
Appellant.

N.K. Verma and Sarla Chandra for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F
S.B. SINHA, J. The Appellant was working as a Junior Engineer at
Jagadalpur in the year 1969-1970. He allegedly failed and/or neglected to
maintain a register known as ACE-8 Register. After he had handed over
charge to his successor Shri K.C. Sariya, on or about 11.04.1975, a disciplinary
proceeding was initiated against him on the following charges: G
"(i) he had failed to maintain ACE-8 Register showing acquisition and
utilisation of 4000 Kgs. of telegraph copper wire received from SDOT,
Raipur, tnrough Sub-Inspector, Kashiram and Badul Quadir on
22.10. 1969, 30.10.1969 and 2.12.1969 for utilisation on Geedam-Bairagarh
H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 3 S.C.R.

A truck line against estimate No. 2162 duly approved;

(ii) that he had failed to supervise the working of the line and utilisation
of copper wire while the rules require the personnel supervision and
accountability of the said wire; and

(iii) that he also showed misleading entries on the bills of transportation
·-
B for transportation of the material."

The disciplinary proceedings remained pending for a period of seven
years. A report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer only in the year 1982.
In the disciplinary proceeding, the first two charges were held to have been
C proved against the Appellant but the third charge was not proved. He was
directed to be removed from service by the Disciplinary Authority by an order
dated 21.12.1983. An appeal preferred thereagainst came to be dismissed by
the appellate authority by an order dated 21.2.1991 i.e. after a period of seven •
years holding:

D "The ACE-8 sheets were still not available in estimate files of 2 I60
D(a) and 2161 D(a) 69-70. If the statement of Shri Bijlani is taken to
be correct that ACE-8 were prepared and kept in respective estimate
files and were made over to Shri Sariya, then it should not have been
necessary for Shri Bijlani to prepare ACE-8 again on 25.12.73. He
could have mentioned that numerical account of 150 lbs copper wire
E can be made from ACE-8 slips kept in the respective estimate files.
The statement of Shri Bijlani that he prepared ACE-8 of 150 lbs copper
wire on 25. 12.73 on the basis of limited records shown to him is also
not acceptable. He could have demanded access to all the records for
preparing numerical account of 150 lbs/ mile copper wire. The E.O. has
F therefore rightly recorded wire 150 lbs/ mile in ACE-8 (DOC.I). 150 mile
copper wire was issued to east Jagdalpur on 22. I0.69 (2204 lbs) 30. I0.69
(2218 lbs) and 02.12.1989 (4398 lbs) by 20.10.1969 (2218 lbs/mile) copper
wire received 8820 lbs. Of 150 lbs/ mile copper wire but he did not
keep its numerical account in ACE-8 and could not prove its utilization
property."
G
The appellate authority went into question of maintenance of muster
roll and the diaries maintained on day to day basis although that was not the
subject matter of charge. On the said basis, it was held:

"Thus the charge of failure to maintain ACE-8 and his failure to
H supervise the work of SIT and utilisation of copper wire is proved."
-- M.V. BIJLAN!v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

Attention of the appellate authority was also drawn towards a number
of lapses committed by the Enquiry Officer, but it was opined:
901
A

"Opportunity was available to Shri Bijlani to pojnt out all these in the
defence brief, but he failed to submit the defence brief even upto
15.05.1983 although he himself requested the E.O. to permit him to file
defence brief by 15.02.1983. Shri Bijlani also failed to point out the B
lapses being made in the Inquiry to the Disciplinary Authority."

The Appellant filed an original application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal which was marked as 0.A. No.200of1992 questioning
the correctness of the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as
the appellate authority. The said original application was dismissed by the C
Tribunal by an order dated 24.06.1999.

The Tribunal as regard the delay in conclusion of the proceedings held
that charges were framed on the basis of the findings of the CBI (Anti
Corruption Bureau) and, thus, the delay stands explained.
D
The Tribunal furthermore considered only the question as regard
quantum of sentence. It did not go into other contentions raised on behalf
of the Appellant.

A writ petition was filed thereagainst by the Appellant herein. A
contention was raised before the High Court that the findings of the disciplinary · E
authority are perverse.

Before the High Court, a contention was raised on behalf of the
Respondents that it was a case where there had been misutilisation of
substantial quantity of copper wire and not a case of lack of minor supervision. F
The High Court reproduced the following findings_ of the Enquiry Officer:

"The prosecution has verified through documents and witness that
the above quantity of wire was certified as having been received by
Shri M. V. Bijlani. In this context Bill No. A26, A27 dt. 11.11.1969 of
Sriqarage Raipur (DOC-I I) issue letter of store lineman Raipur dt. G
30. l 0.1969 for 1000 Kgs. Of 150 lbs/ mile copper wire (sent through
SIT Garage along with issue letter of store lineman dt. 02.12.1969 for
4398 lbs of Copper wire 150 lbs/ miles (Sent through SIT Kashiram in
truck No. MPR 2700) and bill No. A-22 and 23 dt. 22.10.1969 ofShri
Garage along with issue list of I 00 kgs. of copper wire 150 lbs/ mile
H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 3 S.C.R.

A (Sent through, SIT, Kashiram in Truck No. MPR 2607), were produced
in evidence on which Shri M.V. Bijlani has certified to have received
the goods in good conditions. None of the vouchers show that goods
were received for estimate No. 2161 D(a). It is thus only established
that about 4000 kgs. of copper wire 150 lbs/ mile was received by EST
Jagdalpur during the period October-December, 1969. These are not
B accounted for in ACE-8 of EST, Jagdalpur (Documents !).

Muster roll and work diaries of Mis. Kashiram SIT MIR No. 463/11539
(Sept. 69) No. 463/11532 (Sept. 69) MR 463/11547 (Oct. 69) MR 464/
11556 (Nov. 69) Mis. Abdul Sattar SIT. MR 463/11537 (Sept. 69) MR
463/11459 (Oct. 69) MR 464/11557 (Nov. 69) and M/s. Daya Shankar
c Singh MR 463/11533 (Sept. 69) MR 463/11546 (Oct. 69) MR 464/11558
(Nov. 69) Dec. 69 and January, February, March, 1970, SIT. Abdul
Sattar Diaries of September, October, November, December, 69 and
January, February, March 1970 (vide document No. 216/D(A) viz.
erection of 150 lbs/ mile work has been done on these muster rolls and
D diaries."

On the basis of the aforementioned findings of the Enquiry Officer, the
High Court opined that there had been dereliction of duty which penetrates
into the arena of misutilisation. The High Court rejected the contention of the
Appellant that there had been a theft of copper wire, again relying upon the
E report of the Enquiry Officer.

The High Court, however, noticed that the Tribunal had not delved deep
into the matter.

Mr. Kailash Vasudev, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
F Appellant, has taken us through the report of the Enquiry Officer and submitted
that on reading thereof in its entirety, it would appear that the Enquiry Officer
misdirected himself in arriving at the finding of guilt against the Appellant
without considering the nature of the charges levelled against the Appellant.

Mr. N.K. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents,
G however, supported the impugned judgment. It was pointed out that the
witnesses examined on behalf of the department stated that ACE-8 register
was not being maintained in a register and kept in loose sheet and kept in
the estimate files separately. It was. furthermore submitted that the Appellant
had not been able to prove theft of copper wire and as the allegation against
H the Appellant was that the copper wire 'amounting to 24 miles single wire'
J

M.V. BJJLANI v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 903
were missing and the entire onus was on him to prove the utilisation thereof. A
From a perusal of the Enquiry Report, it appears to us that the disciplinary
authorities proceeded on a wrong premise. The Appellant was principally
charged for non-maintenance of ACE-8 Register. He was not charged for theft
or misappropriation of 4000 kgs. of telegraph copper wire or misutilization
thereof. lfhe was to be proceeded against for misutilisation or misappropriation B
of the said amount of copper wire, it was necessary for the disciplinary
authority to frame appropriate charges in that behalf. Charges were said to
have been framed after receipt of a report from CBI (Anti Corruption Bureau).
It was, therefore, expected that definite charges of misutilization/
misappropriation of copper wire by the Appellant would have been framed. C
The Appellant, therefore, should have been charged for defalcation or
misutilisation of the stores he had handled if he was to be departmentally
proceeded against on that basis. The second charge shows that he had
merely failed to supervise the working of the line. There was no charge that
h~ failed to account for the copper wire over which he had physical control.
D
It will bear repetition to state that the charges which were framed related
to only non-maintenance of ACE-8 Register and non-supervision of working
of the line. In absence of any charge that he had in fact misappropriated
copper wire for his own benefit out of the disposal thereof, the question as
regard purported misconduct by way of misutilisation of 4000 kg. of copper
wire could not have been gone into. Furthermore, it has not been shown. that E
ACE-8 register was required to be maintained in an appropriate form or in a
particular manner i.e. in bound form or in loose sheets.

So far as the second charge is concerned, it has not been shown as to
what were the duties of the Appellant in terms. of the prescribed rules or
otherwise. Furthermore, it has not been shown either by the disciplinary F
authority or the appellate authority as to how and in what manner the
maintenance of ACE-8 Register by way of sheets which were found attached
to the estimate file were not appropriate so as to arrive at the culpability or
otherwise of the Appellant. The appellate authority in its order stated that the
Appellant was not required to prepare the ACE-8 Register twice. The Appellant G
might have prepared another set of register presumably keeping in view the
fact that he was asked to account for the same on the basis of the materials
placed on records. The Tribunal as also the High Court failed to take into
consideration that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after six years
and it continued for a period of seven years and, thus, initiation of the
H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 3 S.C.R.

A disciplinary proceedings as also continuance thereof after such a long time
evidently prejudiced to the delinquent officer.

In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh & Anr., [1990) Supp. SCC
738, this Court has clearly held:

" ... The irregularities which were the subject matter of the enquiry is
B
said to have taken place between the years 1975-77. It is not the case
of the department that they were not aw.are of the said irregularities,
-
if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in
April 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the
said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If
c that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more
than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the
Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay
in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will
be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at
D this stage."

The appellate authority totally ignored the evidences adduced before
the disciplinary authority and in particular the evidence of Shri K.C. Sariya
in favour of the Appellant in this behalf. The appellate authority was required

E
to apply its mind on the materials placed on records. It failed to take into
consideration that the disciplinary authority purported to have relied upon
- -
the police report which was not proved.

It is really a matter of great surprise that a disciplinary proceeding was
initiated five years after the Appellant handed over charge. At that time he
was admittedly not having possession of any documents. The Enquiry Officer
F furthermore took a period of seven years to complete the enquiry. The appellate
authority also took seven years in disposing the appeal. Even then, the
appellate authority did not go into the question as to whether the procedures
laid down for holding the disciplinary proceedings had been followed or not.
He did not go into the contentions of the Appellant herein minutely. The
G memo of appeal filed before the Appellant was very elaborate. He raised a
number of contentions therein. The Enquiry Officer was charged with bias.
He was also charged with unfair conduct. He was said to have committed a
large number of irregularities in the departmental proceeding. The memo of
appeal of the Appellant was in about 65 typed pages. It was sub-divided into
five parts. He made all endeavours to deal with each and every findings of
H the Enquiry Officer and dealt with almost all the documents relied upon by
M.V. BIJLANI v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 905

the department. He also dealt with the deposition of the witness examined on A
behalf of the parties.

The Enquiry Officer proceeded as if in the departmental proceedings the
Appellant was charged with misappropriation of property. The witnesses not
only spoke of theft of copper wire, but also stated about the existence of
muster roll diaries. According to one Daya Shankar, the work shown in the B
diaries were correct. According to him, apart from erection of 300 lbs iron wire
in section Geedam - Bijapur, 150 lbs was erected in entire section. He stated
that broken pieces of wire found were sent to Jagdalpur through SIT diary.
According to him, the work of erecting copper wire started from 5.11.1969 and
continued upto March, 1970. One Shri R.C. Sariya who was the successor of C
the Appellant stated about the maintenance of the muster rolls and the ACE-
8 register. According to him, stores pertaining to estimate were accounted for
and the ACE-8 sheets attached to estimate file. He further stated that ACE-
8 sheets were in the estimate file. One Shri K.D. Shrivastava had stated that
there was report of copper wire theft by one Shri Kashiram.
D
While making the enquiry as against the Appellant, the Enquiry Officer
made adverse comments about the correctness or otherwise of the statements
made by the witnesses examined on behalf of the department without assigning
any reasons therefor. They were examined by the department. If they deposed
falsely, they should have been cross-examined. Only because their evidence
was totally against the department, the same per se would not mean that they E
deposed falsely. The Enquiry Officer opined:

"He did not maintain ACE-8 as ifthe ACE-8 were maintained there was
no necessity of preparing document No. I viz. numerical account of
EST Jagdalpur prepared by Shri M.V. Bijlani, JET Jagdalpur, on
25.12.1973. If there was any ACE-8 prepared earlier by Shri Bij Jani, he F
would have definitely objected to submit another ACE-8 (DOC-I)
which is alleged to have been prepared on the basis of document
shown to him by JE (Vigilance). According to SDOT Raipur, ACE-8
(document 20) issue of copper wire I 50 lbs/mile to EST Jagdalpur had
been mentioned on 22. 10.1969, 30.i0.1969 and 02.12.1969 as 2204 lbs., G
2218 lbs and 4398 lbs respectively. There are no entries of the above
quantity of wire in ACE-8 (DOC-I) of EST Jagdalpur."

The said finding of the Enquiry Officer itself demonstrates that ACE-
8 sheets were being maintained and the quantity of copper wire mentioned
therein existed 4000 lbs. He had furthermore noticed the muster rolls, work H
\

906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 3 S.C.R.

A diaries and work orders ofM/s. Kashiram. The ultimate finding of the Enquiry
Officer was:

" ... As such there is nothing to establish that copper wires 4000 kg
taken for c:opper wire theft replacement was utilised for erection on
theft spots. Even if 175 spans are taken as erected out of 4000 kg of
B copper wire is not accounted for. In the requisition slip (DOC)-6 1000
kg of copper wire was issued by store linemen on 20.10.69 to SIT,
Kashiram (purpose no mentioned) 4398 lbs/ 2000 kg) of copper wire
was issued for shifting work Tumar river to Mari river) vide DOC-8)
through SIT, Kashiram. 1000 kg of copper wire 150 lbs/mile was issued
vide DOC 10 to SIT Abdul Quadir for transportation to Bijapur on
c 30.10.69. As such based on police report work orders and diaries
produced in evidence there appears to be no case of copper wire theft
and if any wire was received for the work has not been accounted for.
Thus, if there was a copper wire theft and supervision effected properly.
All the facts that remain unexplained would have been taken care of.
D Defence has also not come out with details of receipt utilisation and
theft report in their defence statement and has also avoided to submit
written brief to prove his innocence."

Evidently, the evidences recorded by the Enquiry Officer and inferences
drawn by him were not commensurate with the charges. If it was a case of
E misutilisation or misappropriation, the Appellant should have been told
thereabout specifically. Such a serious charge could not have been enquired
without framing appropriate charges. The charges are otherwise vague. We
have noticed hereinbefore that the High Court also proceeded on the basis
that the non-maintenance of diary amounted to misutilisation of copper wire.

F Mr. Verma, when questioned, submitted that the Appellant might have
utilised the same on unsanctioned works. If that be so, a specific charge to
that effect should have been framed.

It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited.
G Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should
be some evidences to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental
proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial, i.e., beyond all
reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Enquiry Officer
performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must
arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to
H prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he
.....
·
I

M.V. BIJLANI v. U.O. l. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 907
cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider A
the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the
relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and
conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent
officer had not been charged with.

The report of the Enquiry Officer suffers from the aforementioned vices. B
The orders of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority which
are based on the said Enquiry Report, thus, cannot be sustained. We have
also noticed the way in which the Tribunal has dealt with the matter. Upon
its findings, the High Court also commented that it had not delved deep into
the contentions raised by the Appellant. The Tribunal also, thus, failed to
discharge its functions properly. C
For the views we have taken, the impugned judgments are wholly
unsustainable.

The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The consequence of the said order
would have been to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority. We, D
however, do not intend to do so as the charges relate to the year 1969-1970.
The Appellant, due to pendency of these proceedings, has suffered a lot. He
is, therefore, directed to be reinstated in service, if he has not reached the age
of superannuation. However, keeping in view the fact that, he has not worked
for a long time, we direct that he may only be paid 50% of the back wages. E
He is also entitled to costs of this appeal. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 5000 ..

v.s.s. Appeal allowed.