AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
a)“to issue appropriate writ, directions or order quashing of an order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the respondent No. 3 in pursuance of enquiry conducted by the respondent No. 5, whereby the petitioner has been terminated from the services being unconstitutional and bad in the eyes of law.
b)Further writ, direction or order directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the service with immediate effect with all service benefits which are available to the petitioner.
c)Any other order which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.”
The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings are as follows: -
The brief facts, as projected by the applicant, are that he was serving in the Department of Posts and was posted as Sub Postmaster (SPM), Nowshera, from 01.08.2011 till his transfer to Sunderbani in the year 2016. According to the applicant, he had rendered about 30 years of service without any previous allegation of misconduct against him. Subsequently, in the year 2020, certain allegations relating to misappropriation of amounts deposited by customers at Nowshera Post Office surfaced, whereupon the applicant was placed under suspension vide Memo No. F/Nowshera SO/2020 dated 15.09.2020. The applicant contends that the suspension was ordered without affording him any opportunity of hearing.
The allegations against the applicant pertained principally to certain transactions stated to have taken place during his tenure as SPM, Nowshera. It was alleged that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was received from one Mohd. Aslam on 08.06.2016 for opening a Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) account, but neither was the account opened nor was the amount credited to the Government account. A passbook bearing the office stamp was allegedly issued to the depositor, though the account number mentioned therein had already been allotted to another depositor. Likewise, it was alleged that an amount of Rs.4,01,000/- received from Rakesh Kumar on 03.07.2015 for opening an MIS account was not credited to the Government account. A further allegation related to issuance of a Time Deposit passbook for Rs.1,80,000/- to Yashpal and Smt. Anju Bala without the corresponding amount being deposited in the Government account. The applicant was also alleged to have violated Rules 23 and 27 of the POSB Manual, Volume-I.
Pursuant thereto, respondent No.5, Inspector of Post Offices, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer vide memorandum dated 25.03.2021 and a departmental inquiry was conducted. The applicant disputes the evidentiary basis of the charges and maintains that the depositors had transacted through a postal agent rather than directly with him. In particular, he relies upon the statements of Rakesh Kumar and Mohd. Aslam to contend that the transactions and issuance of the passbooks were facilitated by the agent. He further points out that payments/interest were allegedly made by the agent even after the applicant had already been transferred from Nowshera in 2016. On this basis, the applicant seeks to attribute the alleged irregularities to the concerned postal agent rather than to himself.
The Inquiry Officer, upon conclusion of the proceedings, held Articles of Charge Nos. I and II as proved, whereas Article of Charge No. III was held not proved. The applicant assails the inquiry report on the ground that material aspects were allegedly left unexamined. According to him, no proper inquiry was made into the stock register of blank passbooks, the source and issuance of the disputed passbooks, the handwriting/signatures appearing thereon or the fact that the disputed passbooks did not bear his signatures. He further contends that inspections conducted during his tenure had not revealed any discrepancy and that the alleged irregularities surfaced only in the year 2020, several years after his transfer.
A principal challenge raised by the applicant relates to the competence of the authority which initiated the disciplinary proceedings and appointed the Inquiry Officer. The applicant contends that respondent No.4, Superintendent of Post Offices, Rajouri Division, was not his competent disciplinary authority and, therefore, could not have appointed respondent No.5 as Inquiry Officer under Rule 14(5) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. According to him, respondent No.3 came to be appointed as the ad hoc disciplinary authority only subsequently and, therefore, the inquiry already conducted at the instance of respondent No.4 stood vitiated.
On the basis of the findings recorded in the departmental inquiry, respondent No.3, acting as the ad hoc disciplinary authority, passed the impugned order dated 29.04.2022 imposing upon the applicant the penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved thereof, the applicant preferred a departmental appeal and also instituted the present Original Application seeking quashing of the order dated 29.04.2022 and his reinstatement in service with consequential service benefits.
The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
The respondents have contested the Original Application by filing their written statement. At the outset, a preliminary objection has been raised regarding maintainability of the O.A. on the ground that the applicant had already preferred a departmental appeal against the dismissal order, which was received by the appellate authority on 16.06.2022 and was still under consideration when the O.A. was instituted on 31.10.2022. According to the respondents, the statutory period of six months available for disposal of the departmental appeal had not expired and, therefore, the O.A. was premature in terms of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The respondents have also pleaded that the applicant seeks re-appreciation of evidence recorded during a departmental inquiry, whereas the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited.
On merits, the respondents submit that the applicant was posted as Sub Postmaster, Nowshera Post Office, from 01.08.2011 to 31.07.2016 and that the fraud/misappropriation of public money at Nowshera Post Office, which came to light in the year 2020, extended over the period from 2011 to 2020. During the departmental investigation, according to the respondents, the applicant’s involvement during his tenure as Postmaster, Nowshera, came to light, whereafter disciplinary proceedings were initiated and he was placed under suspension. The respondents deny that any prior opportunity of hearing was mandatory before placing the applicant under suspension and maintain that the suspension was ordered in public interest.
The respondents further state that Inspector of Post Offices, Sh. Sandeep Bhat, was duly appointed as Inquiry Officer under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The listed witnesses were examined and the listed documents were exhibited during the proceedings. In response to the applicant’s reliance upon the statement of Rakesh Kumar, the respondents submit that the said witness had stated that on 03.07.2015 he and his wife attended Nowshera Post Office for opening an MIS account involving Rs.4,01,000/-; that the concerned Postmaster directed him to meet the postal agent; and that the amount and account-opening form were handed over for opening the account. The passbook was subsequently issued after about three months. The respondents further state that the passbook issued to Rakesh Kumar was found to be bogus and contained an account number belonging to other depositors, whereas the applicant was admittedly functioning as Postmaster, Nowshera, on the relevant date.
As regards the applicant’s contention concerning the stock register of passbooks, the respondents specifically deny that the stock position was in order. Their case is that during the applicant’s incumbency, the stock register was manipulated by showing issuance of fresh passbooks against accounts in which only a few transactions had taken place and where issuance of fresh passbooks was otherwise not warranted. According to the respondents, this modus operandi facilitated manipulation of the stock of blank passbooks, which were thereafter allegedly used for issuing passbooks containing bogus account numbers and deposit entries.
The respondents have also specifically controverted the applicant’s challenge to the competence of respondent No.4. Their stand is that, under the applicable departmental rules, the Divisional Head of the concerned Postal Division was the disciplinary authority in respect of a Postmaster in the time scale working within that Division. Since the applicant was working as Postmaster, Nowshera Post Office, falling within Rajouri Postal Division, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Rajouri Postal Division, was competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings, place the applicant under suspension and appoint the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer.
The respondents, however, explain that since the applicant had initially been appointed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jammu Division, an authority superior in rank to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Rajouri Division, the matter was referred to the Postal Directorate for obtaining sanction for appointment of an ad hoc disciplinary authority competent to impose the appropriate penalty. Consequently, vide Postal Directorate communication dated 16.02.2022, respondent No.3, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jammu Division, was appointed as the ad hoc disciplinary authority. It was thereafter that the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the applicant vide order dated 29.04.2022. The respondents thus maintain that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and concluded in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and deny that the inquiry stood vitiated for want of competence.
Lastly, the respondents reiterate that the applicant had already invoked the departmental appellate remedy and that his appeal, received on 16.06.2022, was under consideration when the present proceedings were instituted. They accordingly submit that the applicant is not entitled to the relief of quashing of the dismissal order or reinstatement with consequential benefits and pray for dismissal of the Original Application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, primarily assailing the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by respondent No.3, whereby the penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon him pursuant to departmental proceedings. The applicant has also sought reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.
The controversy essentially revolves around the legality of the departmental proceedings culminating in the order dated 29.04.2022. The applicant seeks interference principally on the grounds that respondent No.4 was not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings or appoint the Inquiry Officer; that the evidence recorded during the inquiry did not establish his involvement; that the alleged transactions were actually undertaken by a postal agent; that the stock register and disputed passbooks were not properly examined; and that no show-cause notice was issued before suspension or before imposition of the penalty of dismissal.
At the outset, it requires to be noticed that the allegations against the applicant are not of a minor or technical nature. They concern the handling of money entrusted by members of the public to a Government institution. During his tenure as Sub Postmaster, Nowshera, substantial amounts deposited for opening savings/investment accounts were allegedly not credited to Government accounts and bogus passbooks/account numbers were issued. The departmental proceedings ultimately resulted in Articles of Charge Nos. I and II being held proved, while Article of Charge No. III was not proved.
The material placed by the respondents shows that the fraud/misappropriation at Nowshera Post Office came to light in the year 2020 and extended over a considerable period, including the period during which the applicant was functioning as Postmaster, Nowshera. The mere fact that the irregularities surfaced subsequent to his transfer cannot, by itself, wipe out misconduct committed during his tenure. Discovery of misconduct at a later stage is entirely distinct from the time when the misconduct itself is alleged to have taken place.
Much emphasis has been placed by the applicant upon the involvement of the postal agent. However, the presence or involvement of an agent does not, by itself, exonerate the official who was in charge of the Post Office, particularly when the transactions and documents concerned relate to the functioning of that very office during his incumbency. The disciplinary authority was required to examine the cumulative effect of the evidence and not merely whether the depositors had physically handed over money directly into the hands of the applicant.
In this regard, the statement relating to depositor Rakesh Kumar assumes significance. The respondents have specifically pleaded that Rakesh Kumar stated that he and his wife had attended Nowshera Post Office on 03.07.2015 for opening an MIS account for Rs.4,01,000/-; that the concerned Postmaster directed him to deal with the postal agent; and that, subsequently, a passbook bearing an account number which actually belonged to other depositors was issued. The applicant was admittedly functioning as Postmaster, Nowshera, on the relevant date. The witness also confirmed his earlier statement during the departmental inquiry.
The applicant’s contention regarding the stock register also does not advance his case. The respondents have categorically pleaded that the inquiry revealed manipulation of the stock of blank passbooks by showing issuance of fresh passbooks in cases where such issuance was not warranted, and that the passbooks so accounted for were thereafter allegedly utilized for recording bogus account numbers and deposit entries. Thus, the stock register was not ignored altogether, as sought to be projected by the applicant; rather, its alleged manipulation itself formed part of the respondents’ case.
It is also material that the Inquiry Officer did not mechanically hold every charge proved. Article of Charge No. III was held not proved, whereas Articles I and II alone were returned as proved. This circumstance lends support to the conclusion that the Inquiry Officer considered the material charge-wise rather than proceeding with a predetermined intention to punish the applicant.
In disciplinary matters, this Tribunal does not sit as a court of appeal over the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Judicial review is concerned primarily with the decision-making process. The Tribunal cannot substitute its own appreciation of evidence merely because another view may also be possible. Interference would be justified where the findings are based on no evidence, the proceedings are conducted in violation of the prescribed procedure or principles of natural justice, the competent authority has acted without jurisdiction, or the punishment imposed is so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Court. None of these circumstances is established in the present matter.
The principal jurisdictional objection raised by the applicant is that respondent No.4, Superintendent of Post Offices, Rajouri Postal Division, was not competent either to place him under suspension or to appoint the Inquiry Officer. The respondents have satisfactorily explained the position. Their specific stand is that the Divisional Head of the concerned Postal Division is the disciplinary authority in respect of a Postmaster in the time scale serving within that Division. Since the applicant was working as Postmaster, Nowshera, within Rajouri Postal Division, respondent No.4 was competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings, place him under suspension and appoint the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer.
The record further explains why an ad hoc disciplinary authority was subsequently appointed. Since the applicant had initially been appointed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jammu Division, an authority superior in rank to respondent No.4, the matter was referred to the Postal Directorate so that the competent higher authority could impose the appropriate major penalty. Accordingly, vide communication dated 16.02.2022, respondent No.3, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jammu Division, was appointed as the ad hoc disciplinary authority. The final order of dismissal dated 29.04.2022 was thereafter passed by respondent No.3.
There is, therefore, no substance in the argument that appointment of the ad hoc disciplinary authority at a later stage retrospectively invalidated every step earlier taken by respondent No.4. The authority competent to initiate and conduct proceedings need not necessarily be the very same authority which ultimately possesses competence to impose a particular major penalty. What is material is that the final penalty should emanate from an authority legally competent to impose it. On the pleadings and material before us, that requirement stands satisfied.
Equally untenable is the contention that the suspension order is bad merely because no prior show-cause notice was issued. Suspension pending disciplinary proceedings is essentially an interim administrative measure and is not by itself a punishment. A pre-decisional show-cause notice before placing an employee under suspension is not an indispensable requirement merely on the ground urged by the applicant. The respondents have stated that suspension was considered necessary in view of the nature of the allegations and public interest.
The further plea that the final order is vitiated solely because no separate show-cause notice proposing dismissal was issued also cannot be accepted in the manner projected. The applicant admittedly participated in a regular departmental inquiry where witnesses were examined and documents were exhibited. What is material is whether a reasonable opportunity of defending the charges was afforded during the disciplinary process. No specific prejudice resulting from the alleged absence of a separate notice proposing the ultimate punishment has been demonstrated before us.
The applicant has also relied heavily upon his length of service and his assertion that no previous allegation had been made against him during approximately three decades of service. Length of service is undoubtedly a relevant circumstance, but it cannot operate as an immunity against the consequences of serious financial misconduct. In fact, the longer the service and the greater the responsibility attached to the post, the higher is the degree of trust expected from the employee.
A Postmaster occupies a position of considerable public trust. Members of the public, including persons of modest means, deposit their savings in the Post Office on the faith that Government officials entrusted with such money will safeguard it and ensure its proper accounting. Misappropriation, diversion or manipulation of such deposits strikes at the very foundation of that trust. Where financial misconduct involving public money stands proved in a departmental inquiry conducted in accordance with law, misplaced sympathy would itself be contrary to public interest.
Corruption and financial dishonesty in public service cannot be viewed merely as a private wrong between the employee and the employer. Such conduct undermines the credibility of public institutions, shakes the confidence of ordinary citizens and erodes faith in the administrative system. An employee entrusted with public funds is expected to maintain a standard of integrity beyond reproach. Once serious financial misconduct is duly proved, long service or the economic consequences of dismissal cannot furnish sufficient ground for judicial indulgence.
At the same time, we make it clear that our observations are confined to the validity of the departmental proceedings and the findings recorded therein. We are not recording any finding of criminal guilt against the applicant. Departmental responsibility is governed by its own standards and the present adjudication concerns only the legality of the impugned disciplinary action.
The punishment of dismissal also cannot, in the facts of the present case, be termed disproportionate. The proved charges concern substantial sums entrusted by depositors to a public institution and alleged manipulation connected with bogus passbooks and account numbers. Integrity is an indispensable condition of service for an employee entrusted with public money. Once that foundation is lost on account of proved financial misconduct, the employer cannot reasonably be compelled to continue such an employee in service.
Courts and Tribunals must undoubtedly protect employees against arbitrary disciplinary action; equally, they cannot convert the power of judicial review into a jurisdiction for extending sympathy where grave misconduct affecting public funds has been established through a departmental inquiry. Interference with a justified punishment in such circumstances would send an incorrect message and would undermine discipline and public confidence in the institution.
We, therefore, find no procedural illegality, jurisdictional infirmity, perversity in the findings, or such disproportionality in the punishment as would justify interference by this Tribunal. The applicant has failed to make out any case for quashing the order dated 29.04.2022 or for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the Original Application is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned order dated 29.04.2022 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the applicant is upheld.
Pending M.A(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.