Janardan Prasad vs Union Of India & Ors

Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

This O.A. has been filed by the applicants U/s 19 of the AT Act, with the following reliefs:-

i) To quash the order dated 26.7.2012 passed by Superintendent of Post Services, Basti Mandal, Basti , Appellate order dated 3.10.2013 passed by the Regional Director of Postal Services, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and the final order dated 2.3.2017 passed by the Post Master General, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur.

ii) To issue order or direction commanding the respondents to reinstate the applicant in services and may pay the applicant all consequential benefits thereof from the date , the same was accrued to applicant along with 18% interest thereon.

iii) Pass such other and further order as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv) To award the cost in favour of the applicant.

The facts of the case are that the applicant while working as GDS Branch Post Master, Luhuti, he was served with a charge sheet on 15.4.2010. Applicant submitted reply requesting documents like (i) Policy Form, (ii) Insurer Claimant letter (iii) for filled on 31.3.2006 (iv) Diary of Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, East Sub Division Basti (v) Details regarding Medical done by Medical officer. Applicant filed objection against the said charge sheet stating that the aforesaid insurance was signed and verified by the Assistant Superintendent , Post Office and he alone gave the receipt of the insurance premium after the payment. Enquiry officer was appointed who submitted its report on 11.6.2012. In the enquiry report it is stated that Article 2 of the charge sheet is not proved. Thereafter, respondents have passed the impugned order on 26.7.2012 removing the applicant from service. Applicant preferred an appeal on 9.10.2012, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 3.10.2013. Thereafter applicant filed Statutory Petition on 15.4.2014, which was also dismissed vide order dated 2.3.2017. Hence the applicant has filed the present O.A.

Counter Affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for respondents, in which it is stated that applicant while working as GDS, BPM Lutuhi, forwarded death claim along with allied documents pertaining to RPLI policy holder Shri Ram Jatan Yadav to the office of Superintendent of Post Offices, Basti Division, Basti for sanction in favour of Prem Lata d/o Shri Ram Achal vide letter dated 7.8.2007. As a result of inquiry of death claim case, it came to the light that applicant himself purchased RPLI Policy in the name of Ram Jatan s/o Sri Sarjoo on 31.3.2006 for insured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and deposited the amount of Rs. 2640 as half yearly premium. Proposal form was also filled by the applicant. In the said claim form and death certificate, the policy holder Sri Ram Jatan was shown as died on 31.8.2006 whereas from the enquiry, it came to the light that so called policy holder had died on 31.3.2006 in the accident by bus. Nominee Smt. Prem Lata during enquiry in her written statement dated 13.12.2009 deferred the claim. Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report dated 11.6.2012 in which the article of charge No.1 was found proved and Article No. 2 was not found proved. Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer in respect of Article No. 2, as such copy of the inquiry report was sent to the applicant with points of disagreement vide letter dated 13.6.2012 and applicant was asked to submit his reply within 15 days. The applicant submitted his defence representation dated 30.6.2012. Thereafter, disciplinary authority issued punishment of removal from service order dated 23.7.2010. Appeal dated 4.10.2012 and petition dated 15.4.2014 preferred by the applicant against the punishment order dated 23.7.2010 were rejected vide order dated 1.10.2013 and 2.3.2017.

Rejoinder Reply has also been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, through which he has reiterated the facts as stated in the O.A.

Learned counsel for respondents filed Supplementary Counter Affidavit, through which he has reiterated the facts as stated in the counter affidavit and denied the contents of the Rejoinder reply.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that it was fair that applicant got the alleged form filled and the proposal were verified by the Assistant Superintendent and Insurance Surveyor but neither the Assistant Superintendent nor the Insurance Surveyor were called during the enquiry nor were they made witnesses. It is further argued that Chief Witness, Prem Lata was the nominee/ claimant but she did not turn up nor any of her statement were recorded during the enquiry. Medical of the proposer was done on the instructions of the Assistant Superintendent on 31.3.2006 but the doctor who conducted the medical dated 27.1.2006 was neither called nor was made as witness. Death of the insurer took place in the road accident. It is further argued that no money was withdrawn under the said policy. It is further argued that the death certificate has not been produced. Applicant vide letter dated 19.12.2016, applicant demanded the five documents from the respondents but the same were not provided to the applicant. Applicant again under RTI dated 4.1.2017 demanded the aforesaid documents like death certificate, photo copy of the appeal, the details of applicants to whom Dak Jeevan was done on 31.3.2016, details of action taken by the office of Post Master General –Gorakhpur on representation dated 20.2.2015, 15.4.2015, 17.6.2015 and 23.4.2016 and copy of the order dated 15.11.2016 of Post Master General, Lucknow but the same have not been provided to the applicant.

Learned counsel for respondents argued that enquiry was conducted and full opportunity was given to the applicant by the enquiry officer. It is further argued that conduct of the applicant is a glaring case of fraud and manipulation /misappropriation. It is further argued that impugned orders are speaking and reasoned. The disciplinary authority before disagreeing with the enquiry report, given opportunity to the applicant and after reply from the applicant, passed the impugned order. Hence there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the respondents.

We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record.

From perusal of the record, it is evident that applicant while working as GDS, Branch Post Master, a charge sheet was issued upon him. Applicant submitted reply and demanded some of the documents from the office of Director Postal Services, Gorakhpur vide letter dated 19.12.2016, which were related to the charges leveled against the applicant but the same were not provided to the applicant. Statement of some of the important witnesses were not recorded during the enquiry proceedings. Respondents have never denied that applicants have demanded the aforesaid documents in their counter reply.

As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 that “Employee should be treated fairly in any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being imposed on him.”

In the case of O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2002) SCC (L&S) 188 the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that “Even in the case of minor penalty, an opportunity has to be given.”

In the case of A. Padmanabham Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2002 2 CHN, 31, it is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the “Principle of Natural Justice are violated if the relevant documents are not supplied and also not allowed for inspection.”

In the case of Union of India and others Vs.Prakash Kumar Tandon reported in (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 2794 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “if disciplinary proceedings has not been conducted fairly, presumption can be drawn that this caused prejudice to the charged employee.”

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kashinath Dikshita Vs. Union of India reported in (1986) 3 SCC, 229 has held that “the rationale for the rule requiring supply of copies of the documents, sought to be relied upon by the authorities to prove the charges leveled against a govt. servant…… the appellant therein had requested for supply of the copies of the documents as well as the statements of the witnesses at the preliminary enquiry. The request made by the appellant was in terms turned down by the disciplinary authority.” The proposition of law that a Govt. employee is facing a departmental enquiry is entitled to get all the material to enable him to have a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges against him.

When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the employee, it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased, impartial and fair. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that an employee is treated fairly in proceedings, which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service.

Considering the importance of access to documents in statements of witnesses to meet the charges in an effective manner the Apex Court in Kashinath Dikshita versus Union of India and others (supra) has also held in clear words that no one facing a departmental enquiry can effectively meet the charges unless the copies of the relevant statements and documents to be used against him are made available to him. In the absence of such copies the concerned employee cannot prepare his defence, cross examine the witnesses and point out the inconsistencies with a view to show that the allegations are incredible. Observance of natural justice and due opportunity has been held to be an essential ingredient in disciplinary proceedings.

Since the applicant was not provided the copies of the relevant documents as asked for and even the inquiry report has not indicated any reason for not supplying the same as such it is clear that the disciplinary proceedings has not been conducted fairly in respect of the applicant.

As per the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court and pleadings on record, we are inclined to interfere in the present O.A. Impugned orders dated 26.7.2012, 3.10.2013 and 2.3.2017 are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed and impugned orders dated 26.7.2012, 3.10.2013 and 2.3.2017 are quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits with liberty to hold fresh inquiry strictly in accordance with the principle of natural justice and statutory provisions governing the subject, if they deem fit.

There shall be no order as to costs.