Court Orders Reinstatement and Limited Reconsideration of Penalty Based on Lesser Lapses
News Report: In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has set aside the removal of Rajesh Choudhary, an officer of the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC), from service, citing the lack of evidentiary support for the corruption charges against him. The court observed that the judicial review in disciplinary matters is confined to examining the legality of the process and does not extend to the reappraisal of evidence unless the findings are unsupported or perverse.
Justice Sanjeev Narula presided over the case, examining the allegations against Choudhary, which included charges of illegal gratification, operational lapses, and disciplinary misconduct. The court found that the gravest charge of corruption, involving the unexplained transfer of INR 75,000 and other amounts allegedly received as bribes, did not rest on a reliable evidentiary foundation. It noted that the inquiry report lacked a rational link between the receipt of money and any unlawful official favor, and thus, the charge could not be sustained.
The judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between suspicion and evidence, emphasizing that mere suspicion cannot replace proof, even in departmental inquiries where the standard is preponderance of probabilities. It criticized the disciplinary authority for failing to engage with the inquiry officer's qualified findings and for treating the corruption charge as fully established without adequate reasoning.
The court also reviewed the appellate authority's decision, which was found to lack independent reasoning and failed to address the deficiencies in the disciplinary findings. The appellate order was deemed unsustainable as it merely echoed the flawed reasoning of the disciplinary authority.
In its judgment, the Delhi High Court ordered the reinstatement of Choudhary with continuity of service, while granting the CWC limited liberty to reconsider the penalty based on the surviving lapses, specifically the unauthorized departure and operational irregularity. The court stipulated that any reconsideration must be confined to the existing record and should not involve reopening the corruption charge or conducting a de novo inquiry.
The court's decision underscores the principle that penalties in disciplinary proceedings must align with sustainable findings and that extreme penalties cannot be based on lesser surviving lapses once the grave charge is found unsustainable.
Bottom line:-
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is confined to examining legality of the process, not reappreciation of evidence. Penalty of removal cannot be sustained if based on unproved allegations of corruption.
Statutory provision(s): Central Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1986, Regulation 59, Regulation 61, Regulation 68
Rajesh Choudhary v. Union of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2890860
