Ashok Kumar Rajput vs Union Of India & Ors

Om Prakash-VII, Member (J)

The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

“(i) The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned chargesheet dated 01.03.2016, show cause notice dated 03.01.2017, impugned punishment order dated 30.05.2017 passed by exercising power of revision by respondent No. 3 and impugned revisional order dated 23.3.2018 passed by respondent No.2, with all consequential benefits viz. refund of deducted amount from the pay of the applicant with 12% compound interest etc.

(ii) To issue any order, direction or further orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) Award costs in favour of applicant”.

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed on 28.01.2009 as Postal Assistant and was posted at Lalitpur Head Office. While working as Postal Assistant, Lalitpur Head Office, applicant has been served with the minor penalty charge memo dated 01.03.2016 under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. In the chargesheet, it has been alleged that while working at Lalitpur Head Office as Saving Bank Counter Assistant, Lalitpur Head Office for the period 20.03.2010 to 23.03.2010, 26.04.2010 to 01.05.2010 and 07.05.2010 to 12.05.2010 had not brought the fact of non-availability of long book of Saving Bank Account for the period from 26.02.2010 to 22.4.2010. Applicant submitted his representation dated 10.03.2016 wherein he demanded copy of nominal roll for the aforesaid period as well as copy of order-book written by Post Master Lalitpur Head Office. In response to the aforesaid representation of the applicant, disciplinary authority had informed the applicant that applicant may see the aforesaid documents. As per letter of the disciplinary authority, applicant had visited the office and gone through the only nominal roll but required copy of the order-book written by Post Master was not made available to the applicant. Thereafter applicant submitted his representation dated 29.09.2016 against the chargesheet dated 01.03.2016. After considering the representation of the applicant, disciplinary authority did not find the applicant guilty of the aforesaid charges, hence applicant was exonerated from all the charges but Appellate Authority had issued notice dated 03.01.2017 under Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide which he asked the reply against the proposed penalty of recovery of Rs. 3,60,000/- in 36 installments of Rs. 10,000/- each. Against the aforesaid notice, applicant submitted his representation dated 23.01.2017. Without considering the representation of the applicant, appellate authority passed the impugned punishment order dated 30.05.2017. Being aggrieved, applicant filed OA No. 1001 of 2017 which was disposed of by order dated 15.02.2018 directing the authority to decide the case of the applicant afresh. Thereafter, applicant submitted his revision petition dated 23.03.2018 against the impugned order dated 30.05.2017. Revisional Authority has gone through the entire case carefully and has come to the conclusion that the impugned appellate order is just and fair and does not call for any interference and accordingly rejected the revision petition of the applicant.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that after considering the explanation of the applicant against the charge-sheet, disciplinary authority had found that allegation regarding not keeping safe the SB Long Book by the applicant could not be held valid, hence he exonerated the applicant from the charges vide order dated 29.09.2016. Learned counsel further submitted that appellate authority has passed order dated 30.05.2017 without applying its mind and ignoring the finding of disciplinary authority whereby applicant was exonerated from all the charges. Learned counsel contended that while imposing the penalty, respondents had ignored the law that the penalty of recovery from pay is a special type of penalty which cannot be awarded in all types of misconduct. Learned counsel further contended that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were very much aware about the persons who have embezzled the government money by making forged entry in the pass book, thus whole action against the applicant is tainted with malice in law which cannot be held legal from any corner. Learned counsel for the applicant placed on record a copy of Compilation of Post Office Savings Book Manual (Volume 1) wherein it has been mentioned that preservation period for Long Book is 2 years. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant was not responsible for maintaining the long book besides this the Post Master was responsible to maintain the long book as department has been computerized and every work was done by the computer, as is also clear from the Rule 10 of Revised Rules of POSB Manual Vol-1.

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the averments of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that a pseudonymous complaint dated 04.03.2014 was received in the office of Post Master General, Agra Region on 05.03.2014. On receipt of aforesaid complaint, the Post Master General, Agra Region constituted a team for enquiry of the case. On preliminary enquiry, it was found that fraudulent withdrawals/payments have been made from certain Saving Bank Accounts by making fake entries of deposits in back date. Thereafter, the matter was inquired by the CBI Lucknow. Keeping in view the huge embezzlement in Lalitpur Head Post Office, the appellate authority issued the notice to the applicant vide memo dated 03.01.2017. With reference to the notice mentioned above, applicant represented vide letter dated 23.01.2017. After thorough examination of the whole case and representation of the applicant, appellate authority found that punishment given by the respondent NO. 4 is not sufficient in view of the huge loss of government money and imposed the recovery of Rs. 360000/- from the salary of the applicant in 36 installments of Rs. 10000/- each with immediate effect. Applicant filed original application No. 1001 of 2017 against the order of appellate authority, which was disposed of by order dated 15.02.2018 with the direction to the respondents to decide the appeal by a reasoned and speaking order. In compliance of the order of the Tribunal, Revisional authority rejected the revision of the applicant. Hence orders in question were passed in accordance with rules and guidelines. Punishment imposed upon the applicant is minor punishment.

We have considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and gone through the documents on record.

As the facts of the case have already been stated above, it would be a futile exercise to reiterate them. The applicant was posted in the respondents department as a Postal Assistant. The disciplinary proceedings were started against him and a charge memo was served upon him and applicant was directed to submit his reply. Thereafter, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the disciplinary authority exonerated the applicant from the charges but appellate authority sent dissent note and asked the applicant to submit reply for the proposed punishment. Against the punishment, applicant moved his appeal before the Appellate Authority. Thereafter appeal of the applicant has been rejected by the appellate authority vide impugned order dated 23.03.2018 imposed the recovery of Rs. 360000/- from the salary of the applicant in 36 installments of Rs. 10000/- each with immediate effect. It is also evident from the record that punishment imposed upon the applicant is minor punishment.

Thus, the core issue involved in this matter is that whether the procedure prescribed for imposing the aforesaid penalty has been followed by the respondents or not.

10 We are fully conscious of the fact that the judicial review is not an appeal of a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision has been made. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receive fair treatment. In the case of Govt. of A.P. Vs. P. Chandra Mouli – 2009 (13) SCC 272, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the power of punishment to an employee is within the discretion of the employer and ordinarily the courts do not interfere, unless it is found that either inquiry proceedings or punishment is vitiated because of non-observance of the relevant rules and regulations or principles of natural justice or denial of reasonable opportunity to defend, etc. or that the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. Thus, the Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse.

In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union Of India & ors. – (1995) 6 SCC 749, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

“Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made, power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as Appellate Authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.”

In this matter as is evident from the record that minor charge-sheet was served upon the applicant. Reply was made by the applicant. On the basis of enquiry report, disciplinary authority exonerated him but appellate authority prepared a dissent note and served it to the applicant and imposed the penalty as disclosed hereinabove upon the applicant. Applicant had approached before this Court earlier through OA No. 1001/2017 which was disposed of directing the appellate authority to decide the matter afresh. Again appellate authority imposed the punishment upon the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant specifically submitted that applicant was not responsible for maintaining the long book besides this the Post Master was responsible to maintain the long book as department has been computerized and every work was done by the computer, as is also clear from the Rule 10 of Revised Rules of POSB Manual Vol-1. If the submission raised across the bar is compared with the facts and circumstances of the case it is not disputed in the matter that no information regarding non-availability of the long book was given by the applicant at any point of time to the higher authorities. Due to this reason a huge amount i.e. Rs. 3,07,74,350/- -was embezzled. Since it is a matter of minor punishment case, all the facts are based on documentary evidence there was no necessity of full-fledged enquiry. Every procedure prescribed for imposing minor penalty has been followed. Preservation of long book has no relevance in the present matter. What duty casted upon the applicant has not been fulfilled by him. Thus, submission raised across the bar is not acceptable. The Court/Tribunal has very limited power of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings and Courts/Tribunals dealing with the matter have to ensure that the employee receives fair treatment and relevant rules, regulations and principles of natural justice have been adhered to and the employee was afforded reasonable opportunity to defend its case. Courts/Tribunals have not to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding but certainly to ensure that such findings must be based on some evidence and findings of Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It also transpires from the facts and circumstances of the case that all procedures prescribed for imposing minor punishment have been followed by the disciplinary authority. The finding arrived at by the appellate authority and revisional authority both are based on documentary evidence.

In view of the above discussion, no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the impugned orders as have been challenged in the instant original application. Accordingly, Original Application is dismissed. All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.