K. Mahadevu vs The Joint Commissioner of Customs and Others

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—The petitioner herein was working as an Assistant Chief Accounts Officer (ACAO) under the respondents at the time of attaining superannuation. Thus, he retired as an Assistant Chief Accounts Officer (ACAO) on 31.7.2008. Prior to the date of retirement, the petitioner was placed under suspension and was allowed to retire on superannuation on 31.7.2008. Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on the charge that during the period from July 2007 to June 2008, he failed to ensure the amounts deducted from the salary of the Staff of Air Cargo Complex Division towards LIC premium/Recovery Deposit/Maintenance Charges/Water Charges/Association Subscription remitted towards the concerned head. One Mr. V.L. Simon - the Administrative Officer (A.O), who was handling the cash, also faced the enquiry independently. The petitioner as well as said Simon were jointly and severally accountable for the misappropriation of cash to the tune of Rs. 3,46,398/-(Rupees Three Lakh Forty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Eight Only). It is further charge against the petitioner that he has displayed lack of integrity and devotion to duty in terms of Sub-rule 1(i) and (ii) of Rule 3 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (''Conduct Rules'' for short) and that he has also acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant in terms of Sub-rule 1(iii) of Rule 3 of Conduct Rules and rendered himself liable for disciplinary action under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.

During the course of enquiry, adequate opportunities were given to the petitioner of being heard. After detailed enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted and in the said report, the said charges are held to be proved. The enquiry report was served on the petitioner to enable him to make representation. After hearing the petitioner as per Law, the Disciplinary Authority passed the Order as per Annexure-''A32'' dated 26.4.2013 concluding that there was shortage and misappropriation of cash to the tune of Rs. 3,46,398/- (Rupees Three Lakh Forty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Eight Only) and that the petitioner has failed to perform his duties as Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) in terms of Rule 13 of the Central Government Accounts (Receipts of Payments) Rules, 1983 whereby he was required to maintain a separate account for non-Government money related to recoveries from salaries of staff, verify the daily balance, sign on the Registers, physically verify the cash and keep it in his safe custody.

The contention of the petitioner is that Mr. Simon was an Administrative Officer of his equivalent rank. He was handling the cash and he was solely responsible for the loss, was not accepted by both the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority. By passing the detailed order, the Disciplinary Authority decided that the pension of the petitioner be reduced to the level of minimum admissible pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules and further that 50% of the misappropriated amount be recovered from his gratuity, if not already recovered. Further the balance amount of his gratuity may be released, if otherwise not required.

The said order dated 26.4.2013 (Annexure-''A32'') was questioned by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Original Application No. 459/2013 which came to be dismissed on 31.7.2014.

Sri. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner taking us through the material on record, submits that the joint enquiry could have been held against the petitioner and Mr. Simon. Though Mr. Simon was held guilty in a separate disciplinary proceeding, penalty imposed on him is very meager; the petitioner was innocent inasmuch as Simon was incharge of the cash and therefore, the penalty imposed on the petitioner is proportionate to the proved charges.

The said submission cannot be accepted. The fact finding authority, on verification of the entire records has concluded that there is a misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 3,46,398/- (Rupees Three Lakh Forty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Eight Only). It is no doubt true that one Mr. Simon was also held responsible for such misappropriation. Separate enquiry was conducted against him and he was also punished. Merely because, the lesser punishment is imposed on him, it cannot be said that the Disciplinary Authority ought to have imposed the same punishment on the petitioner also. The punishment depends on the gravity of the proved charge. Since, it is found that the petitioner has not maintained a separate account for non-Government money related to recovery from salary of the staff; not verified the daily balance; not recovered cash and as such he did not keep the cash in safe custody on day to day basis, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly concluded that the petitioner is liable for punishment as imposed by it. The Disciplinary Authority has also concluded that Simon being the Cashier, he was also jointly responsible, but the gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner is on the higher side as compared to Simon''s misconduct. Since, we find that the sentence imposed on the petitioner is just and proper and as the said order is rightly confirmed by the Central Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, no interference is called for.

Accordingly, writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed.