K. Kulandaivel vs Union Of India & Ors.

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

Aggrieved by the order of the 2^nd respondent, dated 31.10.2016 in removing the applicant from engagement and which has been confirmed in appeal by the 1^st respondent, vide his order dated 19.06.2017, the applicant has filed the OA to set aside the said orders and consequently prayed for a direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to reinstate him into service with all attendant benefits and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.

Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows: While working as GDS BPM, Sadayampatti BO, the applicant was placed under put-off duty by the Inspector of Posts, Natham Sub-Division, with effect from 15.04.2015, which was subsequently ratified by the 2nd respondent, the competent authority. A charge-sheet was issued alleging irregularities committed by the applicant in the discharge of his duties.The Inquiry Officer (IO), being a subordinate officer under the Disciplinary Authority, conducted the inquiry allegedly in violation of the principles of natural justice and denied the applicant certain defence documents. The Presenting Officer submitted his brief, to which the applicant submitted a detailed reply denying the charges. The put-off duty was revoked and the applicant was reinstated vide memo dated 09.09.2016. The inquiry report dated 14.09.2016, holding the charges proved, was furnished to the applicant on 20.09.2016. Regarding Charge-I, the applicant contended that the depositor was a habitual defaulter and that the charge was based on incorrect entries in the passbook. Regarding Charge-II, the depositor had made no complaint against the applicant and, during the inquiry, admitted having received the entire withdrawal amount. Despite this admission, the IO held the charge proved, allegedly to satisfy his superior authority. Without properly considering the applicant's reply to the Presenting Officer's brief and the inquiry report, the 2nd respondent removed the applicant from engagement by order dated 31.10.2016. The applicant's appeal dated 11.11.2016 was rejected by the 1st respondent on 19.06.2017. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the applicant has filed the present OA challenging the same.

The learned counsel for the applicant mainly contended that the applicant had sought more than 12 documents as additional defence documents during the inquiry, whereas the Inquiry Officer (IO) supplied only 7 documents. Thus, the IO failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 14(12) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Consequently, the applicant was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, in violation of the principles of natural justice and the constitutional safeguards under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

He further submitted that the 2nd respondent had only partly considered and replied to the contentions raised by the applicant in his reply dated 10.10.2016 to the Inquiry Report, while failing to deal with the remaining defence submissions. Therefore, the order dated 31.10.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent cannot be construed as a self-contained, speaking and reasoned order, as required under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

The learned counsel further submitted that, during the inquiry, the SB-3 card relating to RD Account No. 233971 was wrongly marked as SE-3, though no such SB-3 card was listed or sustained under Annexure-III to the charge-sheet. Similarly, the complaint of Smt. S. Chinnaponnu was not included as a charge-sheet document under Annexure-III; however, a copy thereof was supplied to the applicant as a defence document by the IO. He also drew attention to the fact that SE-2 and SE-5 were neither included among the documents listed under Annexure-III to the charge-sheet nor sought by the Presenting Officer as additional documents. These material aspects were not considered by respondents 1 and 2.

He further contended that the reasons furnished by the IO for non-supply of the remaining additional documents, namely, that they were “not available” or “not relevant”, were not supported by any specific or cogent reasons. The IO had failed to indicate the circumstances or basis for arriving at such conclusions, contrary to the instructions contained in paragraph 25(2) of the Government of India's decision below Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Hence, a mere statement that the documents were “not available” or “not relevant” cannot be treated as a valid or sufficient reason for denying the requested defence documents.

The learned counsel also submitted that, in order to avoid any allegation of bias or prejudice, the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer ought ordinarily to be appointed from a Division other than that of the disciplinary authority. In the present case, the appointment of the 3rd respondent, being a subordinate officer of the Disciplinary Authority, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, as a subordinate officer may be inclined to act in a manner intended to satisfy his immediate superior. Therefore, the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Inquiry Officer was improper and vitiated the inquiry proceedings. For the aforesaid contention, he prayed for grant of relief sought in the OA.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, relying upon the reply statement, submitted that out of the 12 additional documents sought by the applicant, 7 documents were supplied, while the remaining 5 documents could not be supplied as they were either “not available” or “not relevant”. All relevant and available documents were furnished to the applicant, and he was afforded adequate and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in accordance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that neither in his representation against the Inquiry Report nor in his appeal had the applicant established the relevance of the additional documents sought by him or demonstrated how such documents would have assisted in establishing his innocence. Moreover, none of the additional documents supplied to the applicant was relied upon or produced by him during the inquiry. Hence, the contention that the applicant was denied a reasonable opportunity of defence is untenable.

The learned counsel further submitted that, while recording the deposition of Smt. S. Chinnaponnu, SW-2, on 27.04.2016, her complaint letter, which had been sought by the applicant as a defence document, was identified and marked by the Inquiry Officer as SE-5. The applicant did not raise any objection to the marking of the said document at that stage, and the same was duly recorded in the Daily Order Sheet dated 27.04.2016. It was therefore contended that the Inquiry Officer had rightly permitted the Presenting Officer to introduce documents SE-2 and SE-5 through the State Witnesses during the inquiry. Accordingly, there was no procedural irregularity or lacuna in the conduct of the inquiry, which was held in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

With regard to the appointment of the 3rd respondent as the Inquiry Officer, the learned counsel submitted that Rule 14(5)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, does not prohibit the appointment of a subordinateofficer of the Disciplinary Authority as the Inquiry Officer or Presenting Officer. Therefore, the appointment of the 3rd respondent was valid and there was no basis for alleging bias or prejudice on that account. Consequently, the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 were stated to be legally sustainable and justified.

Finally, the learned counsel submitted that the charges against the applicant were grave in nature, involving alleged non-credit of RD deposits and short payment of RD closure amounts to members of the public. Such acts, according to the respondents, resulted in loss of confidence among depositors in the POSB operations of the Branch Office and adversely affected the image and reputation of the Department. Having regard to the gravity of the misconduct, the applicant was stated to have deserved a severe punishment commensurate with the charges proved against him. Accordingly, the punishment of removal from engagement was justified. The learned counsel therefore prayed for dismissal of the OA.

We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both the sides, perused the pleadings and the materials available on record.

The applicant was issued with a Memorandum of Charge Sheer under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 by the 2^nd respondent vide Memo, dated 01.10.2015, making allegation that he has committed irregularities while functioning as GDS BPM at Sadayampatti BO. The following Articled of charges were issued against the applicant: “Article - I:

Upon perusal of the records, it is seen that the charge memo was served on the applicant on 04.10.2015. The applicant, then working as GDS BPM, submitted his representation dated 02.11.2015, denying the charges and expressing his desire to be heard in person. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed, and the inquiry proceedings were completed on 30.06.2016. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 14.09.2016, holding Articles of Charge I and II as proved. The Inquiry Report was furnished to the applicant vide letter dated 20.09.2016, granting him fifteen days' time to submit his representation. The applicant accordingly submitted his representation dated 10.10.2016. Upon consideration of the records, the applicant's representation and the Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 31.10.2016, imposed the penalty of removal from engagement. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which, upon consideration of the matter, confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority and rejected the appeal by order dated 19.06.2017.

The principal contention of the applicant is that he was denied five out of the twelve additional documents sought by him during the inquiry, thereby depriving him of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. On examination of the records, however, it is found that the reasons for non-supply of the said five documents were specifically recorded by the Inquiry Officer in Daily Order Sheet No.3 dated 11.04.2016. Significantly, the applicant and his Defence Assistant signed the said Daily Order Sheet without raising any objection to the reasons recorded therein at that stage.

Further, the applicant has not demonstrated either in his representation against the Inquiry Report or in the present OA as to how the non-supply of the said five documents materially prejudiced his defence or affected the outcome of the inquiry. Mere non-supply of certain documents, in the absence of a demonstration of their relevance and the prejudice caused thereby, cannot by itself be construed as denial of reasonable opportunity or violation of the principles of natural justice. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the contention raised by the applicant regarding denial of defence documents does not establish any procedural irregularity in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and appears to have been raised as an afterthought.

We also find that the applicant was afforded adequate opportunity at all material stages of the disciplinary proceedings, including an opportunity to submit his defence, participate in the inquiry, receive the Inquiry Report and submit his representation thereon, followed by a statutory appeal against the order of penalty. No material irregularity warranting interference with the disciplinary proceedings has, therefore, been established.

Insofar as the question of punishment is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Subrata Nath, Civil Appeal Nos. 7939-7940 of 2022, decided on 23.11.2022 and reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998 has reiterated that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited and that the Court/Tribunal should not ordinarily reappreciate the evidence or interfere with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, particularly when the same has been duly considered and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Interference with the quantum of punishment is warranted only in exceptional circumstances and for cogent reasons. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:

Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, we find that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and that the applicant was afforded adequate and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The contention regarding non-supply of five additional documents does not establish any prejudice caused to the applicant, particularly when the reasons for their non-supply were recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the Daily Order Sheet and the applicant did not raise any contemporaneous objection thereto. The applicant has also failed to demonstrate how the non-supply of those documents materially affected his defence or the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer.

We further find that the Inquiry Officer, after considering the evidence and materials available on record, returned findings holding Articles of Charge I and II as proved. The applicant was furnished with a copy of the Inquiry Report and was afforded an opportunity to submit his representation, which was duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority before imposing the penalty. The Appellate Authority also considered the matter and confirmed the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. No procedural irregularity, violation of the principles of natural justice, or denial of reasonable opportunity has been established by the applicant warranting interference by this Tribunal.

As regards the quantum of punishment, the charges proved against the applicant relate to serious financial irregularities involving non-credit of RD deposits and short payment of RD closure amounts to members of the public. Such misconduct, if established, is undoubtedly serious in nature, particularly in a public-facing postal savings system where the maintenance of financial integrity and the confidence of depositors are of paramount importance. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the misconduct proved against the applicant, we are not persuaded to hold that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate so as to warrant judicial interference.

In view of the above, and keeping in mind the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, we find no infirmity either in the disciplinary proceedings or in the orders passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities warranting interference by this Tribunal. The punishment imposed is not found to be disproportionate to the gravity of the charges proved. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 call for no interference.

In the result, the Original Application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.