HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 16074 of 2026 Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and another …..Petitioner(s) Versus Central Administrative Tribunal and 2 others …..Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I. Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. Heard Shri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the Commissioner and Joint Commissioner of Novodaya Vidyalaya Samiti assailing the order dated 24.03.2026, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad ('the Tribunal') has partly allowed the Original Application ('O.A.') No. 1796 of 2015 filed by respondent no. 2 ('the respondent'), setting aside the punishment (removal) order dated 03.09.2013 as well as appellate order dated 25.11.2013 passed by the petitioners. The Tribunal has further issued a direction to the petitioners to grant ex post facto relieving to the respondent w.e.f. 19.11.2008 with a further observation that no functional purpose would be served in issuing specific direction to the petitioners for granting leave to the respondent without pay w.e.f. 20.11.2008 to 19.11.2010 or the permission to 2 WRIA No. - 16074 of 2026 maintain lien on the post of Vice Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Katihar, Bihar ('JNV, Katihar'). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent initially joined Jahawar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mathura on 22.10.1991 as P.G.T. (Geology). On his claim for the post of Principal of another institution, after certain proceedings, the respondent received a letter from District Inspector of Schools, Siddharth Nagar and another letter from Manager, Ratan Sen Inter College, Bansi, Siddharth Nagar, U.P. ('RSIC, Bansi') asking him to join the post of Principal, RSIC, Bansi before 26.11.2008. Since the respondent was, at that time, working in JNV, Katihar, he made a request through the Principal of JNV, Katihar to the Joint Commissioner, NVS Headquarter, New Delhi for relieving him on 19.11.2008. The application of the respondent was forwarded by the Principal through proper channel to the competent authority. 4. The petitioners issued a charge sheet to the respondent levelling a charge that he, while working as Vice Principal of JNV, Katihar, deserted the post from 20.11.2008 and took up employment as Principal in RSIC, Bansi without proper authorisation of the petitioners. An inquiry was conducted against the respondent, wherein the Inquiry Officer submitted his report that the charge against the respondent did not stand proved. The Inquiry Officer asked the respondent to submit his reply to the report which was submitted by him, whereafter the Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 03.09.2013 removing the respondent from service and the departmental appeal preferred by the respondent against the order of removal was also dismissed by the appellate authority on 25.11.2013. 5. Assailing the orders dated 03.09.2013 and 25.11.2013 with certain consequential reliefs, the O.A. giving rise to the present writ petition was filed by the respondent, which has been partly allowed by the Tribunal by order dated 24.03.2026 in terms already indicated herein-before. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made submissions that since the respondent joined the post of Principal, JNV, Bansi without due 3 WRIA No. - 16074 of 2026 approval granted by the petitioners, he committed misconduct and, therefore, was rightly removed from service and the Tribunal has erred in allowing the O.A. By referring to document at page 106 of the paper book, submission has been made that the respondent applied for earned leave only for one day, i.e. 20.11.2008 indicating the reason as 'personal work' but misrepresented before the department by somehow securing appointment in State of U.P. and though the Inquiry Officer did not find charge as proved against the respondent, the Disciplinary Authority was well within its right not to agree with the conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer and, therefore, the order of punishment was rightly passed. 7. Further submission has been made that scope of judicial review by the courts in matters of disciplinary proceedings is quite limited and technical rules of evidence or proof of fact etc. being not applicable, interference can be made only where disciplinary authority is found to have held the proceedings in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or statutory provisions and once no such breach of rules is found in the present case, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority should not and could not be interfered with. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the following judgments: "(i) B C Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India: (1995) 6 SCC 749; (ii) Union of India Vs. P Gunasekaran: (2015) 2 SCC 610; (iii) Punjab National Bank Limited Vs. Kunj Behari Misra: (1998) 7 SCC 84; (iv) State of Karnataka and another Vs. N Gangaraj: (2020) 3 SCC 423" 8. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record. 9. From the record of the writ petition as well as the O.A., it stands reflected that the respondent had applied for the post of Principal of RSIC, Bansi through proper channel and after obtaining 'No Objection 4 WRIA No. - 16074 of 2026 Certificate' which fulfilled requisites to relieve him as per the rules in case of his selection. The respondent also made an application dated 17.11.2008 for maintaining lien at JNV, Katihar, unpaid leave and relieving to enable him to join, which application contains receiving remark in the office of Principal, JNV, Katihar. The Tribunal, based upon the said documents, observed that it could not be said that the respondent had deserted his post or did not inform the authorities before joining. 10. It has also come on record that the respondent submitted an application before the Manager of RSIC, Bansi for extension of joining period for one month, but the Manager did not agree and rejected his request by passing an order that in case the respondent was interested in the post, he must join with immediate effect or else no further time would be granted. The respondent, after joining as Principal, RSIC, Bansi, on 20.11.2008, informed the Principal, JNV, Katihar about his joining the new post and requested him not to draw respondent's salary beyond 19.11.2008. 11. The case of the respondent is that in view of the peculiar circumstance in relation to his joining at RSIC, Bansi, there was no option left with him and since it was a question of his career, he had to join at Bansi on 20.11.2008 itself and that he wrote a letter to the Principal, JNV, Katihar on 03.12.2008 requesting him to cancel his request for earned leave that was made by him on 20.11.2008. 12. We further find on record bulk of communications made by the respondent indicating the circumstances in which he had to join RSIC, Bansi and there is no dispute about the fact that these communications were received at JNV, Katihar and, therefore, the question to be examined by this Court is as to whether, under such circumstances, the respondent could at all have been proceeded with departmental inquiry on a charge of misconduct. 13. Admittedly the Inquiry Officer recorded a finding that the charge against the respondent had not been proved. When the matter was taken up by the Disciplinary Authority, order of removal from service was 5 WRIA No. - 16074 of 2026 passed making observation that since the respondent joined at RSIC, Bansi without tendering his ‘technical resignation’ as well as without waiting for reply of the competent authority qua his request dated 17.11.2008 for leave without pay for two years from 20.11.2008 to 19.11.2010, this aspect having not been considered by the Inquiry Officer, the respondent deserves imposition of a major penalty. 14. Surprisingly, the Disciplinary Authority further proceeded to observe that the respondent made his submissions on the inquiry report and the note of disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority but he could not bring any ‘new issues’ in his submissions. In our opinion, when the Inquiry officer found charge against the respondent as ‘not proved’, there was no justification on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to observe that the respondent could not bring any ‘new issue’ in his submissions after he had responded to the inquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority was required to deal with the objection raised by the respondent. As a matter of fact, the Disciplinary Authority acted as if he was an appellate authority against report of the Inquiry Officer which action on his part cannot be countenanced. 15. In so far as the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to procedure of inquiry proceedings vis-a-vis scope of interference by the courts for disciplinary proceedings is concerned, though proposition laid down in the judgments cannot be quarreled with, the judgments cited have absolutely no application in the facts of the present case, particularly when we are of the firm opinion that the very levelling of the charge of misconduct against the respondent was not at all warranted. 16. Further, the manner in which the Disciplinary Authority passed the order removing the respondent from service despite charge having not been proved against him, reflects the stubborn attitude of the officer to somehow teach the respondent a lesson. The sequence of events gives an impression that the matter was allowed to assume the complexion of a prestige issue or an exercise in personal ego, rather than being dealt with 6 WRIA No. - 16074 of 2026 objectively, fairly and in accordance with the requirements of service jurisprudence. 17. The action of the concerned officer appears to have been directed towards leaving an indelible stigma upon the respondent by ensuring that his service record bore the mark of having been ‘removed from service’, notwithstanding the fact that the very foundation of the alleged misconduct was not established in the departmental inquiry. 18. We may observe that the power to impose a major penalty is a statutory power, to be exercised for legitimate disciplinary purposes and not as an instrument for vindicating the authority or personal prestige of the officers concerned. It must be borne in mind that an officer exercising public power does not act in his personal capacity; he acts in discharge of his public duty and every decision taken by him must bear the imprint of institutional responsibility, objectivity, fairness and propriety. The majesty of public office lies not in the capacity to punish but in the restraint with which power is exercised. 19. From overall circumstances of the case and bulk of documents on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has taken a pragmatic view while setting aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority and has also given a thoughtful consideration to other reliefs claimed by the respondent in relation to lien and leave etc. 20. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal. 21. The writ petition has no substance; the same is, therefore, dismissed. (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) October 01, 2026 AKShukla/- Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad