Union of India and Others vs S. Nagendrappa

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—Respondent''s counsel was absent yesterday and is absent today. We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and perused the records.

The order dated 5.3.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, in OA No. 227/2011 is called in question in this writ petition.

Records reveal that the respondent herein was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak, (''GDS'' for short), Branch Post Master, Pandrahalli along with Godabanahal in Chitradurga District on 7.9.1993. On 23.12.2005, the Senior Post Master of Godabanahal reported to the concerned authorities at Chitradurga that there were non-credits in recurring deposits. The two pass books relating to those recurring deposits were under the charge of the respondent. Pending enquiry against the respondent, he was put off from duty. The department initiated disciplinary enquiry as per the Rules against the respondent. During the enquiry it was found that, though entries are made in the two pass books relating to recurring deposits, the same were not accounted in the department records and amount was also not deposited with the department. The total amount involved was Rs. 7,600/-. Two charges were framed which are as under:

"Article of Charge 1 - That the said Sri. S. Nagendrappa while working as GDSBPM, Pandarahalli BO during the period from 01.10.1994 to 03.01.2006, has accepted the RD deposit of Rs. 3,800 from the depositor, Smt. Pappamma to deposit into her RD a/c No. 1480369 for the period from 31.12.2002 to 30.11.2005 (Thirty eight months of deposits) and made deposit entries, initialed with BO date stamp in the RD account Pass book and failed to take the deposited amount into the departmental accounts.

And thus it is alleged that Sri. S. Nagendrappa violated Rule 143 and 144 of Rules for branch offices (sixth edition) and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty contravening the provisions of Rule 21 of the GDS (C & E) Rules 2001.

Article of Charge II - That the said Sri. S. Nagendrappa while working as GDSBPM, Pandarahalli BO during the period from 01.10.1994 to 03.01.2006, has accepted the RD deposit of Rs. 3,800 from the depositor, Smt. Satisavithri alias Savithri to deposit into her RD a/c No. 1480350 for the period from 31.12.2002 to 30.11.2005 (Thirty eight months of deposits) and made deposit entries, initialed with BO date stamp in the RD account Pass book and failed to take the deposited amount into the departmental accounts.

And thus it is alleged that Sri. S. Nagendrappa violated Rules 143 and 144 of rules for branch offices (sixth edition) and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty contravening the provisions of Rule 21 of the GDS (C & E) Rules 2001."

After due enquiry, the report was submitted holding that the respondent was guilty of charges. Thereafter, on 17.9.2008 a show cause notice is issued to the respondent calling upon him to submit his representation, if any. The respondent submitted his reply on 29.10.2008. The Disciplinary Authority on due application of its mind independently and on perusal of the entire material on record including the enquiry report, imposed penalty of removal from employment against the respondent on 19.11.2008.

The respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which also came to be rejected on 11.2.2009. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 227/2011, which came to be allowed on 15.3.2013 as per Annexure-A. While allowing the application, the Tribunal has confirmed the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority that the respondent is guilty of charges. However, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the punishment of removal imposed on the respondent is disproportionate to the proved charges. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to impose any other punishment than the punishment of dismissal or removal, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the observations made in the impugned order.

The respondent herein has not questioned the findings against him given by the Central Administrative Tribunal. However, the department has filed this present writ petition against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Thus, it is clear that the respondent has accepted that his guilt is proved and is liable to be punished.

The only question needs be decided in this writ petition is as to the quantum of punishment to be imposed on the respondent. Rule-9 of Postal Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules specifies nature of penalties. Rule-9 reads thus;

Nature of penalties:

"The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Sevak by the Appointing Authority, namely:-

(i) Censure;

(ii) Debarring of a Sevak from appearing in the recruitment examination for the post of Postman and/or from being considered for recruitment as Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants for a period of one year or two years or for a period not exceeding three years;

(iii) Debarring of a Sevak from being considered for recruitment to Group ''D'' for a period not exceeding three years;

(iv) Recovery from Time Related Continuity Allowance of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of orders;

(v) Removal from employment which shall not be a disqualification for future employment;

(vi) Dismissal from employment which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment."

Except the aforementioned penalties, no other penalties can be imposed on the respondent. The (i) penalty i.e. Censure is too low and if said penalty is imposed by the department, that also amounts to disproportionate to the proved charges.

Since the respondent is already aged about 45 years, he may or may not appear for recruitment examination and he may not take up the examination also. Thus, (ii) and (iii) penalty if imposed also will not be of any consequence.

Since there is no pecuniary loss caused to the Government, penalty No. (iv) also cannot be imposed. Thus, the only penalty which can be imposed on the respondent is either penalty No. (v) or penalty No. (vi). Lesser punishment among them is penalty No. (v) inasmuch as even if he is removed from employment, the same shall not disqualification for future employment. He can be employed in future also depending on the circumstances. If penalty No. (vi) is imposed, then it will be disqualification for future employment also. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Disciplinary Authority is justified in imposing the penalty of removal from employment on the respondent which shall not be disqualification for future employment. Since we find that the penalty imposed is just and proper and as we find that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration Rule 9 of Postal Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, while passing the impugned order, the order of the Tribunal needs to be set aside. Accordingly, same stands set aside. The order of Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority stands confirmed.

Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.