Prabhu Narain Ram vs Union Of India & Ors

Om Prakash -Vii, Member(J)

The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 28.6.2007, advise of UPSC dated 29.4.2014 and impugned order dated 18.6.2014, passed by President of India, withholding of 20% monthly pension.

The facts leading to the present O.A. are that when the applicant was working as Inspector of Posts (North) Sub Division, Varanasi, he was deputed to investigate the matter of fraud committed at Teliabagh Post Office at Varanasi. Sri Udai Krishna was working as Director, when the fraud was committed as such , he was responsible for the lapses which resulted in heavy loss (Rs. 9 crore) suffered by the department. Earlier applicant was suspended which was revoked on 3.3.2005 and applicant was transferred from Varanasi West Division to Mirzapur on 28/29.4.2005 and he was relieved on 26.5.2005 and his record and LPC was sent in June 2005 to Mirzapur. Applicant did not join at the transferred place and went on leave. The applicant was again suspended on 21.10.2005 by the Director, Postal Services. Charge sheet dated 26.4.2007 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued by SPOs, West Div. Varanasi. Applicant submitted reply on 26.5.2007. Hence the charge sheet was dropped. Another charge sheet dated 28.6.2007 was issued. Applicant had filed O.A. No. 977 of 2007 challenging the suspension order dated 21.10.2005 and charge sheet dated 28.6.2007 which was disposed off vide order dated 21.10.2008 with following directions:-

“7. Consequently, we direct the respondents to review and pay subsistence allowance as per law/relevant rules both for the past (as arrears) and for future month to month. This exercise must be completed within one month of receipt of a certified copy of this order. We further provide that in case Disciplinary Enquiry proceedings are not completed within six months (as stipulated above in this order), suspension order shall be deemed withdrawn with liberty to the respondents to withdraw or complete in future disciplinary enquiry in question.”

When the aforesaid order was not complied, the applicant has filed CCP No. 50/2013 which is still pending.

The charges leveled against the applicant were that during the course of inspection of Teliabagh Sub Post Office, Varanasi on 21.11.1996 and 11.11.1997, he failed to verify the credit of sale proceed of cash certificates with the help of purchase application, stock register , issue journal and SO A/c. Applicant submitted reply to the charge sheet on 21.7.2007, in his he has stated that according to para 27 (ii) new para 36 (ii) of Inspection Questionnarie, the inspecting authorities have to tally the daily total of transactions only for four dates after the last inspection as shown by the SPM’s in SB, RD, TD, Long Books and journals , KVP and NSC issue and discharge journals which was done and found satisfactory. The basic responsibility lies with the Post Master Varanasi Cantt and other officials. It is further stated that applicant was transferred on 28/29.4.2005 from Varanasi to Mirzapur and he was relieved on 26.5.2005 but he did not join at Mirzapur and went on leave. On 21.10.2005, he was suspended but subsistence allowance was not paid for several months and it was paid in the month of July, 2007 w.e.f. 21.10.2005 to 30.6.2007. Earned leave of total 137 days w.e.f. 6.6.2005 to 20.10.2005 was sanctioned by SPOs, Mirzapur. Applicant has retired from service on 31.1.2009. It is stated that leave was granted by the SPO, Mirzapur, applicant retired on 31.1.2009 by the letter of SPO, Mirzapur and he was granted provisional pension vide letter dated 8.4.2009 of SPO, Mirzapur. After transfer and relieving from Varanasi to Mirzapur, the Disciplinary Authority of the applicant became SPOs, Mirzapur and charge sheet issued on 28.6.2007 by SPO, Varanasi West is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is stated that without considering the reply given by the applicant against the charge sheet , enquiry proceeding was started. Inquiry officer submitted his report on 14.12.2009 to SPO, West Division , Varanasi. Disciplinary authority sent the inquiry report dated 14.12.2009 along with his disagreement note to the Secretary, Ministry of Communication and I.T. , Department of Posts, New Delhi, who sent the same to the Union Public Service Commission for advice. UPSC sent the advice to the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, New Delhi vide letter dated 29.4.2014. UPSC followed the same dissent note which was given by the disciplinary authority and came to the conclusion that all the charges leveled against the applicant are proved. UPSC advice was sent to the applicant on 8.5.2014. Applicant submitted written representation on 27.5.2014 through registered post and also submitted reply to the show cause notice. Reply of the applicant along with advice of UPSC was placed before the Hon’ble President of India, who came to the conclusion that advice of UPSC is correct and the same may be accepted and it is ordered accordingly. Copy of the order of Hon’ble President of India dated 18.6.2014 has been sent to the applicant in which the penalty of withholding of 20% of monthly pension for a period of 10 years has been imposed on the applicant. Applicant has challenged the charge sheet dated 28.6.2007, UPSC advice dated 29.4.2014 and impugned order dated 18.6.2014 on the ground that charge sheet has not been issued by the competent authority

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has filed counter reply, stating therein that applicant while working as Complaint Inspector, Varanasi West Division carried out 2nd inspection of Teliabagh Post Office on 21.11.1996 and 11.11.1997 and again North Sub Division, Varanasi and failed to observe the instructions issued by the department from time to time and the aforesaid negligence of the applicant, facilitated Sri Ishwari Narain Singh, SPM, Teliabagh to misappropriate the sale proceeds of KVPs/NSCs to the tune of Rs. 8,32,76,402/- .Therefore, the applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 21.10.2006. Disciplinary Proceeding was proceeded against the applicant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide order dated 28.6.2007 for the lapses on his part. On denial of the charges, I.O. was appointed, who submitted his enquiry report on 14.12.2009. Since the charge officer stands retired on 31.1.2009 during suspension, the enquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has automatically been converted under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Enquiry report was sent to the applicant for reply, which was submitted by him on 20.1.2010. The whole disciplinary file was sent to R.O. Allahabad for onward submission for issuance of presidential order. UPSC advice was taken who viewed that the end of justice would be met in the case if the penalty of withholding of 20% of monthly pension otherwise admissible to him for a period of 10 years is imposed on C.O. Accordingly, Presidential order was issued on 18.6.2014 which was challenged by the applicant in the instant O.A.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that two charge sheets were issued to the applicant on 28.6.2007 and 3.7.2007 by the then Superintendent of Post Offices, Varanasi West Division but the fact remain that the applicant was transferred from Varanasi to Mirzapur on 28.4.2005 and was relieved on 26.5.2005. The leave was granted to the applicant by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Mirzapur from June 2005 to 20.10.2005. Subsistence allowance was also paid by Head Post Office, Mirzapur. Meaning thereby, for all purposes the Superintendent of Post Offices, Mirzapur became controlling authority of the applicant since transfer order dated 28.4.2005. It is further submitted that applicant had raised objection regarding competency of SPOs, Varanasi in issuing charge sheet dated 28.6.2007 and 3.7.2007. Objection regarding competency of disciplinary authority has also been raised by the applicant. Objection with regard to charge sheet dated 3.7.2007 was decided on 16.9.2016 by the Hon’ble President of India saying that “ the issue raised by the C.O. questioning the competency of Superintendent of Post Offices, Varanasi West Division to issue charge sheet dated 3.7.2007 to him seems to be valid and the same was not adequately addressed by the D.A. reply submitted by Page 4 of 5 Regional Office, Allahabad by the letter dated 30.6.2016 is not convincing, therefore, the President has ordered to conduct de-novo inquiry from the stage of issue of fresh charge sheet by appropriate disciplinary authority.

Hon’ble President of India in similar circumstances in the charge sheet dated 3.7.2007 has ordered to de-novo enquiry from the stage of issue of fresh charge sheet by appropriate disciplinary authority on the ground that charge sheet was not issued by the competent authority. Perusal of order also reveals that when present charge sheet was issued, the applicant had been transferred from Varanasi to Mirzapur. In the charge sheet dated 3.7.2007 also, the applicant was posted at Mirzapur but charge sheet had been issued by the Varanasi Division. If the facts of the present matter are compared with the facts of the charge sheet dated 3.7.2007, disciplinary proceeding started on the basis of charge sheet issued by the Varanasi Division dated 28.6.2007 and advice of the UPSC as well as impugned order dated 18.6.2014 cannot sustain.

Accordingly, we quash the charge sheet dated 28.6.2006, UPSC advice dated 29.4.2014 and impugned order dated 18.6.2014 with direction to the respondents to conduct de-novo inquiry from the stage of issue of fresh charge sheet by appropriate disciplinary authority and respondents are directed to pay full pension to the applicant till completion of enquiry proceeding and passing of penalty order, if any. It is also directed to refund the amount, if any recovered from the applicant from pension.

There shall be no order as to costs.