AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
By Mallika Arya, AM
Through this Original Application, the applicant is challenging order dated 11.08.2014 (Annexure A/1), whereby he has been removed from service. The applicant is also challenging the order dated 30.06.2015 (Annexure-A/2), whereby his appeal has been rejected by the Appellate Authority and the order dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure-A/3), whereby the revision petition filed by the applicant has been Central Administrative Tribunalrejected by the Reviewing Authority.
Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed in 1992 as Postal Assistant. A charge sheet was served to the applicant by memo dated 03.04.2008 (Annexure A/4), wherein it has been alleged that while working as SPM Bahoribandh, the applicant made forged withdrawals on 27.12.2006 and 28.12.2006 amounting Rs. 30,000/- from the account of Smt. Madhu Gupta, Rs. 20,000/- from the account of Smt. Sashi Mishra on 26.12.2006, Rs. 60,000/- from the account of Shri Charanlal Saini on 16.10.2006, and he has taken Rs. 10,000/- in place of Rs. 8,000/- towards payment of RPLI. He has failed to credit the excess cash into the unclassified receipt account. Thus he has misappropriated Rs. 2,000/-. After receiving the charge sheet, the applicant denied the allegations. The applicant participated in the departmental inquiry. In the charge sheet, it has been alleged that the applicant had fraudulently withdrawn the amount from three account holders by doing forged signature. The applicant has never admitted that he has done forged signatures. Therefore, the opinion of the handwriting expert should have been taken which has not been done. Smt. Sashi Mishra was not produced by the prosecution to prove the allegations as leveled in Article II of the charge-sheet. After recording the statement of prosecution as well as defence witnesses, the applicant has submitted his defence statement (Annexure-A/5). After conclusion of the departmental Central Administrative Tribunalinquiry, the Inquiry Officer gave his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The same was supplied to the applicant by show-cause notice dated 30.06.2014 (Annexure A/6). After receiving the report of the Inquiry Officer, the applicant has preferred a representation on 28.07.2014 (Annexure-A/7). He has pointed out in his representation that the report of the Inquiry Officer is not based upon the materials on record. However, without considering the same in a proper manner, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 11.08.2014 (Annexure-A/1). Against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority on 12.09.2014 (Annexure-A/8). His appeal has been rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.06.2015 (Annexure-A/2). The applicant has also preferred a revision petition on 08.09.2015 (Annexure-A/9) to the Reviewing Authority. The same was also rejected by the Reviewing Authority on 30.08.2016 (Annexure-A/3).
The respondents have filed their reply, wherein it has been submitted that on 15.01.2007, Sub Divisional Inspector, Sihora, Shri I. K. Lillahare inspected the Sub Post Office, Bahoriband wherein he found that entries in the records have not been filled up. During the inspection of logbook, it was found that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was withdrawn on 27.12.2006. However, logbook account number has not been mentioned. The applicant was unable to give the account number from which said amount was withdrawn. That amount was withdrawn from a/c no. 295920 which belongs to Smt. Manju Bai Gupta, who has denied withdrawal of Rs. 20,000/- as there was no entry in her passbook. Since the integrity of applicant was doubtful, therefore a detailed enquiry was conducted. After the enquiry, embezzlement of an amount of Rs.1,10,789/- came into light. A charge sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rule 1965 has been issued to the applicant vide memo dated 03.04.2008 (Annexure A/4). Since he failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in manner which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant and has thereby violated the provision of Rule 3(1) (i), 3(1) (ii) and 3(1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules,1964. During the departmental enquiry, an opinion of handwriting and fingerprint expert was sought with regard to the forged withdrawal from a/c no. 293866 of Shri Charanlal Saini and A/c no. 295920 of Smt. Manju Bai Gupta. Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal gave an opinion that author of disputed documents is different. The report of CFSL has been filed as Annexure R/1 and R/2. It has further been submitted that the chargesheet dated 03.04.2008 (Annexure A/4) was issued under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. During the departmental proceedings, full opportunity for hearing and cross examination has been provided to the Central Administrative Tribunalapplicant. On the basis of inquiry report and documents available on record, the charges have been proved. Therefore, the punishment of removal from service (Annexure A/1) has been awarded to the applicant on account of the fact that the charges leveled against the applicant have been duly proved on the basis of material available on record. The appeal as well as revision filed by applicant against order of punishment has been decided by considering all the points raised by the applicant in appeal as well as revision petition by way of reasoned and speaking orders and affirming the impugned punishment (Annexure A/2 and A/3).
We have considered the matter, heard the counsels and perused the pleadings and documents annexed with the Original Application.
On inspection in the Post Office of Bahoriband, by the Sub Divisional Inspector, an embezzlement of Rs. 1,10,789/- came into light. On further enquiry, it was found that the applicant being SPM Bahoriband, made forged withdrawals and has embezzled the money. Accordingly, a detailed enquiry was done and thereafter a charge sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 was issued to the applicant on 03.04.2008 (Annexure A/4). When the charges got proved by the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed of punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ vide order dated 11.08.2014 (Annexure A/1) which has been subsequently upheld at Appellate and Revisionary stage.
The contention of the applicant is that in the charge sheet, it has been wrongly alleged that he has fraudulently withdrawn the impugned amounts from three accounts by doing forged signatures. An opinion of the handwriting expert was taken. The respondents in their reply have annexed the opinion of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal regarding examination of the signatures done during the withdrawal from the account holders. The CFSL has given the following opinion:
“The documents of this case have been carefully and thoroughly examined.
2.The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S1 to S88 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q4.” The contention of the applicant that opinion of handwriting expert was not taken gets annulled on account of above report by CFSL, Bhopal.
We observe that the order of punishment dated 11.08.2014 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Senior Superintendent of Post, Jabalpur) is a reasoned and speaking order. An opportunity to represent his case was given to the applicant during the disciplinary proceedings at each and every stage by the respondents in line with the principles of natural justice. The order dated 11.08.2014 (Annexure A/1) was issued considering the gravity of misconduct committed by the applicant. Since he was not found suitable to be continued in government service, the punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed vide order dated 11.08.2014 (Annexure A/1). Thereafter the applicant preferred an appeal against the said order which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.06.2015 (Annexure A/2). Further, the revision petition preferred by the applicant has also been decided by the reviewing authority vide order dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure A/3).
While working as Sub-Post Master, Bahoriband, the applicant was the sole incharge of the post office. Since, the matter relates to embezzlement of Govt. funds, the above misconduct stands established against the applicant. Further, this has tarnished the image of department.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Limited and another Vs. Jai Raj Singh Chauhan, (2011) 13 SCC 541: (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 67 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has considered various case laws on the subject, and has given the following findings:
“(19)In Union of India Vs. Parma Nanda (1989) 2 SCC 177 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 303 : (1989) 10 ATC 30, this Court while dealing with the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment awarded by the disciplinary Central Administrative Tribunalauthority observed as under:
“27.We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice, what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority.”
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 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 Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. Reported in 1995 (6) SCC 749 again has observed that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited. The Courts are not competent and cannot appreciate the evidence. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
“The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges against the appellant to have been proved. After consultation with the UPSC, the appellant was dismissed from service by an order dated 29.10.1986.The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence, upheld all the charges as having been proved but converted the order of dismissal into one of compulsory retirement. The delinquent filed an appeal challenging the finding on merits, and the Union filed an appeal canvassing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the punishment imposed by it. Allowing the appeal of the Union of India and dismissing that of the delinquent.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court has also observed with regard to scope of judicial review as well as with 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:-
“10.This Court in Om Kumar and Others vs. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 while considering the quantum of punishment / proportionality has observed that in determining the quantum, role of administrative authority is primary and that of court is secondary, confined to see if discretion exercised by the administrative authority caused excessive infringement of rights. In the instant case, the authorities have not omitted any relevant materials nor any irrelevant fact taken into account nor any illegality committed by the authority nor the punishment awarded was shockingly disproportionate. The punishment was awarded in the instant case, after considering all the relevant materials and, therefore, in our view, the interference by the High Court on reduction of punishment of removal is not called for.”
Hence, we are of the considered view that the punishment imposed on the Applicant by the Disciplinary Authority which has been subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authority and Revisionary Authority does not merit any interference by this Tribunal.
Accordingly, we find no merit in the Original Application and the same is dismissed. No costs.