Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Khawaja Bux Aged About 54 Years vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 11 February, 2013
(RESERVED) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD Allahabad this the 11th the day of Feb., 2013. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 339 OF 2010. HONBLE DR. K.B.S. RAJAN, MEMBER- J. HONBLE MS. JAYATI CHANDRA, MEMBER- A. Khawaja Bux aged about 54 years, S/o Shri Rasool Bux, R/o Bangalipura, Ali Ahmad House, District Banda, Permanent Address House No.199, Inside Orchhagate, Jhansi. ..APPLICANT VERSUS 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communication and Information Department of Postal, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 2. Director Postal Services, C/o Post Master General, Agra. 3. Superintendent, Rail Mail Service X Division, Jhansi Division Office, Jhansi. .RESPONDENTS Present for the applicant : Sri M.I. Ansari Present for the respondents: Sri R.K. Srivastava O R D E R
BY HONBLE MS. JAYATI CHANDRA, MEMBER- A. The present Original Application has been filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash the appellate order dated 27.01.2010 (Annexure A-1) and the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 29.4.2009 (Annexure A-2) by which the pay of the applicant has been reduced from Rs.9370 to 5200 in the pay scale and reduction of grade pay of Rs.2800 to Rs.2000. These reductions in pay would have cumulative effect. Additionally, the period of suspension would be adjusted against the earned leave due to the applicant.
2. The applicant was working as Mail Gaurd in the RMS between Jhansi and Manikpur. On 15.11.2007, he was on duty in the X-6-out passenger Train to Manikpur. The regular Mail Man was not available and the Substitute Mail Man did not turn up till the last minute. Therefore, the applicant was alone on duty in the train. At Karvi, he was given a Transit Bag (T.B), which he opened for purposes of sorting and rebagging for Manikpur. He reached Manikpur station at 2.00 p.m on 15.11.2007 and handed over the Mail to SRO (RMS) Manikpur and proceeded to stay at RMS Rest House at Manikpur. He was never contacted by SRO (RMS) Manikpur or of Sub Post Office Manikpur during his stay at RMS Guest House. Next morning i.e. 16.11.2007, he was on duty in the return train X-6-in leaving Manikpur at 9.30 a.m. At 9.20 a.m he was given a T.B. from Sub Post Office, Manikpur by the Mailman of Sub Post Office. He opened the T.B. for purposes of sorting. On opening the bag he found three bundles of Rs.10000/- each kept loosely in the T.B and he kept the same in the light junction box of the bogey intending to hand over the cash in Jhansi at the end of his duty. At Karvi, some people from Head Post Office Karvi came to the Bogey and as he knew them, he handed over the money without taking the receipt from them. He was chargesheeted on the charge of misappropriating the money of Rs.30000/- meant for Sub Post Office Manikpur sent from Karvi. An enquiry was held but the Inquiry Officer failed to appreciate the contradiction in the statement of SW-1 and SW-2, who had stated that all the seal of the bags received by them were in order. Further Rs.30000/- was accounted for in the Accounts of Sub Post Office Manikpur which would not have been done if money had not been actually received at Manikpur. He has also stressed the fact that he stayed in RMS Guest House between 2 p.m on 15.11.2007 to 9.30 on 16.11.2007 shows that he had nothing to hide.
3. In their counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the Post Master at Sub Post Office Manikpur opened the T.B. from Karvi in the morning of 16.11.2007, and he found the mail bag and registered bags have been damaged and Rs.30000/- invoiced to him was missing. He contacted the Post Master at Karvi Head Post Office, who confirmed that Rs. 30000/- had been sent to Manikpur. Thereafter he communicated his suspicion of the applicant having taken Rs.30000/-. Head Post Master Karvi agreed and sent some representative who along with RPF personnel boarded the train at Karvi and found the money. The money was confirmed by the treasure Karvi as being the same that had been sent to Manikpur. Therefore, this is a straight case of misappropriation of money, which was fortunately prevented by prompt action of Sub Post Master, Manikpur and Post Master, Head Post Office Karvi.
4. Rejoinder and Supplementary counter affidavits have also been filed moreorless reiterating the separate version of two parts as detailed earlier.
5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records.
6. At outset, we are guided by the pronouncement of Honble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay Vs. Shashikant S. Patil 2001 SCC 416 which lays down that the scope of judicial review in a disciplinary case is limited to instances where there is violation of principle of natural justice or that the statutory provisions regarding the procedure of holding an enquiry had not been adhered to or there has been some malafide/external influence or the conclusions arrived at are arbitrary or capricious.
7. In our opinion in this case there has been no violation of principle of natural justice or irregularity in the process of conducting the disciplinary case from the issue of charge sheet and thereafter the applicant himself has not pointed to any major instances beyond stating certain lapses of interpretation by the Inquiry Officer in the statement made by SW 1 and SW 2. However, there are certain circumstances which are we feel rather curious and arbitrary. As per the normal departmental procedure, all postal mail being carried under the RMS system, at the end of journey, is handed over to SRO RMS as was done in this case at Manikpur. Various daks are opened and mail is sorted for various destination at one point generally the Head Post Office from where mail received from other destination are pooled/separated and sent to Sub Post Offices. In this case also, the same procedure of at-least one more point of redistribution after the dak was received at Manikpur station and sent to Sub Post Office Manikpur (where money was found missing) would have been adopted. The task of sorting mail is a round the clock affair Mail that was received at 2.00 p.m. on 15.11.2007 also remained in someones custody till it was opened at 9.00 a.m. on 16.11.2007. It is curious that Post Master of Sub Post Office Manikpur immediately felt suspicious of the applicant and not of the entire range of persons who had custody of the mail. He has stated in his statement that although he went to Manikpur station, he neither carried out any search nor attempted to detain the applicant nor communicated the loss to any superior. He has stated that he did not do so as he did not have the proper authority. He straightaway contacted the Post Master at Head Post Office Karvi who ordered the search and seizer. It is not clear whether the Head Post Master Karvi had the proper authority to order a search and seizer. He has further stated that he had accounted for the money in his Account Register as Rs.30000/- was recovered and accounted for.
8. Be that as it may, we are also conscious of the fact that the money that was recovered was indented from Karvi to Manikpur as per the slip and seal on the money bundles. They were recovered from the light junction box in the coach, which was attended by only the applicant. The respondents had charge-sheeted the applicant consequent on the discovery and recovery of money. The departmental proceedings were carried out without exploring anything beyond the obvious such as possible frame up and the punishment of reduction of pay was awarded to him.
9. We are also conscious of the fact that while exercising the power of judicial review, this Tribunal should not substitute its own judgment for the decision of the disciplinary authority unless the punishment awarded to the charged official is blatantly disproportionate. This is also the direction given by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Director General RPF V. Sai Babu, 2003 (4) SCC 331.
10. However, in this particular case, in our opinion apart from the circumstances mentioned in para 7 there are certain mitigating circumstances for example 29 years of service without any past record of misdeed or any punishment being accorded. The applicant has stated that he had been alone in charge of dak between stations on many previous occasions. This averment has not been denied by the respondents. It is also true that the applicant was physically present at Manikpur where the loss of money, could have been detected at any point of time before the departure of return train as sorting the mail etc. is a round clock job and the opening or cutting of a sealed money bag and rebagging of it could have been detected in any point of time. This does not appear to be normal behaviour of a person, who is guilty of certain misdeed. The Disciplinary Authority has awarded the punishment, which to our mind seems rather heavy without giving full weightage to these factors.
11. The O.A. is disposed of. The impugned appellate order dated 27.01.2010 (Annexure A-1) and the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 29.4.2009 (Annexure A-2) are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondents to take a re-look at the entire service records specially in the light of observation made in paras 7 and 10 above and take a fresh decision either confirming or reducing the quantum of punishment by passing a reasoned and speaking order. No costs.
Member (A) Member (J)
Manish/-
??
??
??
??
7