Shrichand Singh vs Union Of India & Ors.

Per Rameshwar Vyas

The challenge in this O.A. is to the Memorandum of the Charges dated 05.02.2011 issued under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal), Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1965”], and the order dated 13.03.2015 (Annex.A/2) of the disciplinary authority imposing a penalty upon the applicant wherein the applicant was reverted to the post of Postal Assistant and the order dated 01.12.2015 (Annex.A/3) of the appellate authority i.e. the Post Master General and the order dated 09.01.2017 (Annex.A/4) of the revisional authority i.e. the Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan, dismissing the appeal and the revision respectively.

The facts of the case in brief are as under :

After starting his career as a temporary status (TS) Clerk under respondents in the year 1978, the applicant was promoted to the post of Inspector of Post Office vide order dated 02.01.1989. He was serving as Inspector at Khetri Nagar and also holding the additional charge of the Post Office at Chirawa. During inspection of the Chirawa office of the applicant by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Jhunjhunu, serious irregularities committed by the applicant while making recruitment to the post of Gramin Dak Sevak (GDSs), Jherli B.O. (Pilani SO ) and Kajra came to light. On receipt of the report, directions were issued to take action against the applicant under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965.

Pursuant to the aforesaid report, Memorandum of Charges along with Statement of Imputation of misconduct was issued against the applicant vide impugned Memorandum dated 05.02.2011 (Annex.A/1). One of the allegations against the applicant was regarding the selection of Sh. Sunil Kumar with 64.67% of marks while ignoring Sh. Mahipal with 79.5% of marks. It is also alleged that there is no proof of receiving the application of Sh. Sunil Kumar. Similarly, during inspection of Chirawa Post Office, it came to notice that Sh. Pradeep Kumar was selected after 18 days of last date of receipt of the application on the basis of a fabricated income certificate. Similarly, as per the allegation, Sh. Ashok Kumar was selected for the post of GDS, Jakhod Sub Post Office in violation of the recruitment rules.

Upon denial of the charges by the applicant, the inquiry officer and the presenting officers were appointed to inquire into the matter. The applicant participated in the inquiry. After recording evidence and taking on record the documents by both the authorities, an inquiry report was prepared on 13.09.2014 (Annex.A/12). While serving a copy of the inquiry report to the applicant on 22.09.2014, he was asked to file representation, if any, against the same. The applicant submitted his representation dated 10.11.2014. After considering the representation of the applicant, the disciplinary authority, i.e. The Director Postal Services, Jodhpur, vide order dated 13.03.2015 (Annex.A/2), imposed a penalty of reversion of the applicant from the post of Inspector to Post Offices [PB-2 G.P. Rs 4200/-] to the post of Postal Assistant [PB-1 G.P. Rs 2400] effective till his retirement. It was further ordered that his pay would be fixed equal to the pay level at the time of his promotion to the post of Inspector (Posts) and he would be entitled to annual increments in that level, i.e. Postal Assistant. The appeal filed by the applicant against the above order was dismissed by the Post Master General, vide order dated 01.12.2015 (Anex.A/3) against which, the applicant filed a revision petition to the Chief Post Master General, Jaipur, who vide order dated 09.01.2017 (Annex.A/4), dismissed the revision petition. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, the applicant has preferred this present O.A. mainly on the following grounds :

The respondents in their reply denied the averments made by the applicant. The applicant rejected the application received without income certificate and violated the instructions contained in the letter dated 17.09.2003. Sh. Sunil Kumar having 64.67% marks was selected while Sh. Mahipal, a top meritorious candidate having 79.5% of marks, was ignored. The applicant committed irregularity in not finalising the selection process immediately after the last date of issuing the notification. He received applications in breach of the conditions of the notification. Sh. Pradeep Kumar’s application was received by hand and his name was entered in the selection process in breach of the conditions mentioned under the notification. His income certificate was found forged. Similarly, Sh. Ashok Kumar was selected for the post after eighteen days of the last date which is violative of the rules. Applications were received by ordinary post, which is in breach of the conditions of the notification.

The applicant inspected all related original documents listed in the chargesheet in the presence of his defence assistant. The allegation of biasness against the inquiry officer was considered by the Director, Postal Services and did not find any justification. As per the reply, the inquiry officer followed all procedures. A copy of the inquiry report was also delivered to the applicant. The applicant also submitted his representation. The disciplinary authority, after careful examination of the representation along with the record, passed the order impugned herein. Similarly, the appellate authority and the revisional authority affirmed the punishment order. It is wrong to say that selections were not completed. In fact, the selection process had already been completed by the applicant but in all these three recruitment processes, the applicant violated the departmental rules, instructions issued vide letters dated 17.09.2003 and 18.07.2007 with mala fide intention ignoring the meritorious candidates from getting employment.

The corrigenda were issued for correcting some typographical mistakes. As per Rule 13 (2) of the Rules of 1965, the disciplinary authority competent to impose any of the minor penalties may initiate the process of disciplinary proceedings against the Government servant concerned for imposition of a major penalty notwithstanding that such authority is not competent to impose any of the major penalty. It is not correct to say that the authority lower than the disciplinary authority rejected the application of the applicant dated 23.12.2013 for change of inquiry officer. The presenting officer, Sh. K.L.Soni was not a witness in the memo of charges against the applicant. The punishment has been awarded as per the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules. Lack of knowledge of the rules cannot be a ground to absolve the applicant from the charges of irregularities. In the present case, the applicant bye-passed the merit criteria in the selection along with various other irregularities. Earlier also, the applicant was punished for the same type of misconduct. He is habitual in making illegal appointments by overlooking the departmental rules and the regulations. Contradicting the grounds raised by the applicant, the respondents have prayed to dismiss the O.A.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

During the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant contended that in the present matter, the chargesheet was amended twice vide Corrigendum dated 18.08.2011 and 12.9.2012. He contended that a copy of the Circular dated 18.07.2007 was not provided to him.

The applicant requested to change the inquiry officer for the bias on his part, but that request was rejected by an incompetent authority. The disciplinary authority was not competent to decide it. He further contends that at the most it was a case of supervisory negligence; therefore, the punishment imposed upon him is disproportionate to his conduct. He has been reverted from the post of Inspector to the post of Postal Assistant, that too in the pay scale of entry level. It is the prayer of the applicant to quash and set aside the punishment imposed upon him.

On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the request of the applicant to change the inquiry officer has been turned down by the Post Master General, who was competent to decide the same. It is further contended that the applicant failed to indicate any procedural lacunae or lapses on the part of the inquiring authority, disciplinary authority, appellate authority or the revisionary authority. Looking to the serious allegation against him and his previous conduct, the punishment imposed upon him cannot be said to be disproportionate to his conduct. The applicant, with an oblique motive to give undue favour to less meritorious candidates, allowed their applications after the last date, that too by ordinary post and made their selection after rejecting the applications of meritorious candidates on grounds not available in the rules. The applicant was solely liable to complete the recruitment process; therefore, it is not a case of committing supervisory negligence. In three different selection processes, he deliberately committed grave irregularities with oblique motive to favour his choice persons. Looking to his previous conduct, the penalty imposed upon the applicant cannot be termed as disproportionate to his misconduct proved in the present matter. The case of the applicant is not similar to the cases of other persons referred to by him. In the present matter, the applicant completed the process of selection of the less meritorious candidates after rejecting the applications of meritorious candidates on frivolous grounds.

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and material available on record, it emerges that the respondents did not commit any error in issuing the corrigendum(s) in the chargesheet to correct the date of circulars. The respondents, in their reply, have clarified that, on considering minor typographical mistakes in the chargesheet, two Corrigendum dated 18.08.2011 and 12.09.2012 were issued. We find no illegality in correcting the date of letters/instructions in the corrigendum as the corrigenda did not alter the substance of the allegation or introducing any new charge and the applicant had sufficient opportunities to rebut thereto. The applicant was aware of the correct date of the letter of 17.09.2003 as is evident from last para of his representation (Annex. A/13) submitted against the charge memorandum.

There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the request letter dated 23.12.2013 (Annex.A/10) for change of inquiry officer was not decided by the competent authority. The request letter dated 23.12.2013 (Annex.A/10) was rejected by the Post Master General and not by the Assistant Director, as alleged by learned counsel for the applicant. The Post Master General being appellate authority of the disciplinary authority was a competent authority to change the inquiry officer.

So far as the competency of the Superintendent of the Post Offices to issue charge memo under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965 is concerned, Rule 13 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 authorizes the disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings for imposition of the major penalty, notwithstanding that he is not competent to impose any of the major penalties.

The applicant failed to justify his action in accepting the applications after the last date, that too by ordinary post or by hand. So far as the decision of the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority in holding the applicant guilty, we find no ground to interfere with the same. The authorities, after appreciating the evidence, passed the order with reasons touching the necessary aspects of the case.

The applicant also failed to indicate any procedural lacunae or illegality while completing the disciplinary proceedings against him.

It is also evident that the applicant rejected the applications of the candidates having higher merit for want of an income certificate although the applicable rules/instructions do not permit to do so at that stage. The applicant was not required to call for the income certificate before preparing the selection list on merit basis. It was not open to him to reject the candidature of the persons who were meritorious in comparison to the candidates selected by the applicant. Therefore, the findings arrived at by the inquiry authority and the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence. There is no scope for this Tribunal to re-evaluate the evidence discussed by the aforesaid authorities. This Tribunal cannot act as an appellate authority.

Certainly, this Tribunal can ensure the correctness of the procedure adopted by the aforesaid authorities while completing the inquiry proceedings against the applicant. However, learned counsel for the applicant during arguments could not indicate any procedural lacunae or irregularity or illegality in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Unawareness of the instructions/rules cannot be a ground to absolve any official from any illegality. In the present case, the finding of the disciplinary authority that the applicant deliberately committed grave illegalities and irregularities in conducting the recruitment process for the post of GDSs, does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Bench.

So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant to the effect that Rule-11 of the Rules of 1965, does not provide reversion as a type of major penalty, we would like to mention that Rule 11 (vi) of the rules specifically provides reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service as a type of major penalty. In view of the above, we find no merit in the case against the action of the respondents in holding the applicant guilty of misconduct.

So far as the quantum of penalty imposed upon the applicant is concerned, having regard to the deliberate misconduct on the part of the applicant in selecting less meritorious candidates after giving undue advantage to them and rejecting the candidature of the meritorious candidates without any valid reason, and the previous misconduct referred to in the disciplinary proceedings, we find no ground to hold that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to his conduct warranting interference by this Tribunal. Hence, this OA is dismissed with no order as to costs.