Prem Bahadur Singh vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member(J)

Heard Mr. Satya Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rajni Kant Rai, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 and Shri Ashish Srivastava, holding brief of Mr. R. P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent-6.

The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed by the applicant, challenging the impugned order 28.09.2007 passed by the respondent- 4, Superintendent of Post Offices, Mirzapur Division, Mirzapur, whereby the applicant has been removed from the services as well as order dated 30.03.2012 passed by respondent- 3, Director Postal Services, Allahabad, by which the appeal filed by the applicant has been dismissed, confirming the order dated 28.09.2007 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the applicant into services as a Branch Post Master, Padariya Kala (Kubari Patehara), Mirzapur, within stipulated period.

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Branch Post Master, Padariya Kala (Kubari Patehara), Mirzapur in September, 1982. On 24.09.2003, respondent-5, Deputy Superintendent of Post Offices, Mirzapur West Sub-Division, Mirzapur inspected the Padariya Kala Branch Office (Kuberi Patehra), Mirzapur and during the inspection, a sum of Rs.5909.35/- was found short out of the total balance of Rs.6159.10/- as applicant could not deposit this short balance and he used this short amount. The applicant had also not deposited Rs.1510/- into Recurring Deposit (hereinafter referred as ‘R.D’) A/c Nos.2108553, 2108554, 2108555, 2108556 and 2108557. Therefore, he misappropriated the Government amount of Rs.5909.35 and Rs.1510.00 total amounting to Rs.7419.35/-. Accordingly, the applicant was placed under suspension and a charge sheet was also issued to him vide SPOs Mirzapur Memo No. CR-9/20/03- 04 Mirzapur dated 07.10.2004 under Rule- 10 of Gramin Dak Sevak ( Conduct and employment) Rule-2001 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rule-2001’) which was replied by the applicant vide letter dated 26.10.2004, denied all the allegation leveled against him.

Subsequently, on 18.11.2004, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Mirzapur Division, Mirzapur /respondent No. 4 appointed Sri Suresh Kumar Singh, Sub Post Master, Laldiggi, Mirzapur as Inquiry Officer in order to conduct full fledged inquiry under Rule 10 of Rule 2001. The inquiry concluded his inquiry and submitted his Report on 29.06.2007 with a finding that Charge No. 1 was proved against the applicant and charge No. 2 was not proved.

Thereafter, the copy of Inquiry Report was sent to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Mirzapur Division, Mirzapur/respondent No. 4, who vide Memo dated 25.07.2007 disagree with the inquiry and report and sent his disagreement letter to the applicant also along with inquiry report. In response thereto, the applicant filed his explanation /representation on 20.08.2007, which was received by the respondent-4 on 22.08.2007.

Subsequently, the respondent-4, Superintendent of Post Offices, Mirzapur West Sub Division, Mirzapur, imposed a punishment of removal from the service vide order dated 28.09.2007 with immediate effect.

Against the said order, an appeal was filed by the applicant, which was also rejected vide Memo No. Vig/3-6/2008/1 dated 26.12.2008 by Director, Postal Services, Allahabad. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority as well as order dated 28.09.2007 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant filed a Original Application No.211/2009 before this Tribunal, which was partly allowed vide 30.11.2011, whereby the Appellate Order dated 26.12.2008 was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Post Master General, Allahabad to decide the appeal of the applicant afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

In compliance to the order dated 30.11.2011 passed in Original Application No.211 of 2009, the Director Postal Services, Allahabad Region considered the matter and passed a reasoned and speaking order vide Memo No- Vig/3-6/2008/1 dated 30.03.2012, dismissing the appeal of the applicant and confirming the punishment order of removal from service dated 28.09.2007 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Both theses orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority are impugned in the present Original Application.

Counter affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents 1 to 5 on 06.12.2013, wherein it is stated that the applicant misappropriated the Government amount i.e. Rs.5909.35 and Rs.1510.00 total amounting to Rs.7419.35 and as such, Disciplinary Proceeding has rightly been initiated against the applicant and after completion of inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly removed the applicant from services. The order of Disciplinary Authority was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. After remand by this Tribunal vide order dated 30.11.2011 passed in Original Application No.211/2009, the Appellate Authority passed a detailed order dated 30.03.2012, which is reasoned and speaking order after taking into consideration all the relevant rules, guidelines and observation made by this Tribunal in Original Application No.211/2009. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders.

The respondent-6 also filed his counter affidavit on 17.01.2013, wherein it is stated that on 24.09.2003, the respondent-5 came to the village of deponent and put his signature on a complaint, already prepared on which the deponent/answering respondent put his signature without verifying his R.D. accounts and his other family members and as such, there was no compliant filed by the respondent-6 against the applicant.

In reply, Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant, wherein he reiterated the facts as mentioned in Original Application. It is further stated that on 24.09.2003 at about 3:30 PM, the respondent -5 visited the Branch Post Office of the applicant and after inspection the respondent -5 demanded illegal gratification and when the applicant expressed his inability to the same, the respondent -5 prepared some forged application in the name of respondent- 6 and his other family members, who were R.D. account holders in the branch of the applicant and obtained their signature somehow. On the basis of the aforesaid forged applications, the respondent-5 made up false story, leveling the false charges against the applicant for not depositing the amount of Rs. 1510/- after taking the same from the respondent -6 and also not showing the same in R.D. Account general. Another false charge was leveled against the applicant that he spent the amount of the post office in his personal case. The Director, Postal Services, Allahabad Region, Allahabad (respondent-3) while passing the impugned order dated 30.03.2012, did not consider observation made in the order dated 30.11.2011 in Original Application No.211/2009.

Learned counsel for the applicant assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the same have been passed illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind. It is further stated that since the applicant’s leg was broken in a road accident and as such, he was running his Post Office in a primary school adjacent to a clinic and for security purpose, he did not have the entire cash there at time of inspection.

He further submitted that the respondent-6, in his statement before the Inquiry Officer, denied all the allegations as alleged by him against the applicant and also stated that he had not given his earlier statement/application and respondent-5 has obtained his signature by way of fraud on a blank paper and on the basis of forged application, filed by respondent-6, the respondent-5 made up false story, leveling the false charges against the applicant for not depositing the amount of Rs.5909.35 and Rs.1510.00 total amounting to Rs.7419.35 and also not showing the same in R.D. Account general.

He further submitted that the respondent-3 while passing the impugned order, did not consider the observations and directions passed by this Tribunal vide order dated 30.11.2011 passed in Original Application No.211/2009.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the respondent-5 inspected the Padariya Kala Branch Office (Kuberi Patehra), Mirzapur on 24.09.2003 and during the inspection, it was found that the applicant misappropriated the Government amount Rs.5909.35 and Rs.1510.00 total amounting to Rs.7419.35. The applicant did not inform about his leg fracture and the applicant had wrongly kept the Post Offices running temporarily on another accommodation or place other than its original place without prior approval of competent authority.

Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the charges leveled against the applicant were proved completely, therefore; the applicant was removed from service vide Memo-No-CR-9/20/03-04 dated 28.09.2007, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 30.03.2012 passed by respondent-3 after examining appeal, inquiry report, charge sheet, Disciplinary proceeding file, relevant documents and statements of the evidences. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority.

We have considered the arguments so raised by both the parties and perused the records.

It reflects from the record that the disciplinary proceeding against the applicant was initiated in respect of two charges, which reads as under:-

Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted his report to the effect that charge No.1 has been proved against the applicant, but the 2^nd charge has not been proved vide Inquiry Report dated 29.06.2007. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the inquiry report and sent his disagreement to the applicant with the inquiry report, which was also replied by the applicant. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority after considering the reply and all the aspect of the matter, passed the impugned order of punishment of removal from service vide order dated 28.09.2007, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 26.12.2008.

Subsequently, this Tribunal in Original Application No.211/2009 vide order dated 30.11.2011 after quashing the Appellate Order dated 26.12.2008 directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal of the applicant. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority after considering the appeal and materials on record, dismissed the appeal of the applicant and confirm the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority has recorded the following findings in para 7.1 to 7.7, which reads as under:-

From perusal of the aforesaid findings recorded by the Appellate Authority, it is crystal clear that both the charges against the applicant have been duly proved and even during the preliminary inquiry and in his written statement dated 24.09.2003, the applicant admitted the 2^nd charges that he made the endorsement regarding the deposit of money in all the five R.D. Accounts, but he had not deposited the money and as a result thereof, the said amount could not be taken into the total amount, deposited by the applicant and as such, the case as developed during the inquiry is contrary to the earlier statement of the applicant.

Further, it is settled principle of law that in OAs challenging the orders in disciplinary proceedings, the scope of interference of the Tribunals is very limited. In a catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been held that the judicial review in the disciplinary matters should not be in the form of reappreciation of evidence. The Courts should only look at the correctness of process and not get into re-evaluation of evidence before the Inquiry Officer. The findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority which are affirmed or diluted by the Appellate Authority should not be interfered with unless the applicant shows that the order is without jurisdiction; or that there is procedural irregularity in conducting the enquiry. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of S.R.Tewari vs. Union of India 2013(7) Scale Page 417 has held as under:-

In a large number of cases including the case of Bank of India v. Apurba Kumar Saha ; (1994) 2 SCC 615, State Bank of India and Others v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sree Rama Rao; AIR 1963 SC 1723,Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pt. Ram Sarup; AIR 1957 SC 82, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Prabhu Dayal Graver, 1995(6) SCC (L&S) 279=1996(1) SLJ 145 (SC), Deokinandan Sharma v. UOI and Ors., 2000 SCC (L&S) 1079, State Bank of India vs. Ram Lal Bhaskar & Another (2011 STPL (web) 904) and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Raghubir Singh and another, CWP No. 1154/2014 decided on 06.05.2014 by Punjab and Haryana High Court, the underline theme is that the High Court/tribunal does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority and so long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported by some evidence the High Court does not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding on the evidence. They have to see whether there is violation of natural justice and fair play or any procedural irregularity committed by the inquiry officer, Disciplinary authority and due procedure was adopted strictly in accordance with the service rule.

The Apex Court in the case of Union of India versus P.Gunasekaran 2015 (2) S.C.C. Page 610) in paras 12, 13 & 20 has held as follows:-

The Apex Court in the case of B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. Reported in 1995 (6) SCC 749 again has been pleased to observe that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings the Court are not competent and cannot appreciate the evidence. In this regard, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-

In another case the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Upendra Singh reported in 1994(3)SCC 357 has been pleased to observe that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary enquiry is very limited. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-

The Apex Court has also observed in regard to scope of judicial review as well as in regard to the quantum of punishment in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Md. Ayub Naaz reported in 2006 (1) SCC 589 as under:-

In the instant case, from the record, it is evident that there is substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed for disciplinary proceedings as well as inquiry and ample opportunity of being heard has been provided to the applicant, thus it cannot be said that there is violation of principle of natural justice and any procedural violation as such which will vitiate the inquiry and there is no iota of evidence to prove allegation of bias, malice or perversity.

In view of the foregoing discussions and the catena of judgments of Apex Court, we find no illegality or any infirmity or any violation of principle of natural justice and the relevant provisions were followed by the disciplinary inquiry as well as Appellate Authority. Hence, no interference is warranted in the instant Original Application.

Resultantly, instant Original Application stands dismissed.

All associated M.A.s stand disposed of.

No order as to costs.