Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Basudeo Jha vs Post Jharkhand Circle on 17 July, 2023
1 OA 646/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH
CIRCUIT SITTING AT RANCHI
O.A. No. 051/000646/2022 & MA 33/2023
Date of Order: 17.07.2023
CORAM
HON'BLE SHRI M.C. VERMA, MEMBER [J]
HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, MEMBER [A]
Basudeo Jha, aged about 75 years, son of Late Nenalal Jha, resident of
Village-Derma, P.O.-Sanour, P.S.-Basant Rai, District-Godda, Jharkhand.
.......... Applicant.
By Advocate :- Shri Anand Kumar Singh
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through Director General of Post, Department
of Post, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, PO7 PS-Sansad Marg, New
Delhi-110001.
2. The Member (Personnel), Postala services Board, Office of the
Director General of Post, Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, Sansad
Marg, PO7 PS-Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Director Postal Services, Ranchi, Office at Post Office
Building, Ranchi, PO7 PS.-and District-Ranchi, PIN-834001.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Dumka, PO & PS-
Dumka, district-Dumka, Pin-814101.
......... Respondents.
By Advocate :- Smt. Shweta Singh.
O R D E R (O R A L)
M.C. Verma, M[J] (1) The OA is at notice stage hearing and today is the 8th date when this OA is on Board for notice hearing. Two MAs filed by the applicant subsequent to filing of the OA are also on Board for hearing. (2) This OA was filed on 17.08.2022, assailing and impugning order of dismissal of applicant from service passed by Disciplinary Authority on 29.11.2004, and also assailing and impugning the Order 2 OA 646/2022 dated 07.02.2006 whereby appeal of the applicant has been rejected. After filing of OA one MA for condonation of delay has been filed in January 2023 and thereafter second MA, No. 33/2023, has been filed for quashing of order passed by the Revisionary Authority.
(3) The fact as transpired from the pleadings of the OA and the Annexure attached therewith is that applicant before his transfer to Dumka on 09.08.1996 had remained posted at Poraiyahat from 13.02.1995 to 09.08.1996. Applicant after his transfer to Dumka did not join the post there and according to the applicant he was ill and according to the respondents he remained absent unauthorizedly and it transpired misappropriation of government money to the tune of Rs. 64265.89 by him during his tenure at Poraiyahat. Charge sheet was served upon the applicant by the respondents for the misappropriation of Govt. money and for unauthorized absence and departmental enquiry was initiated. That a criminal case for misappropriation of government money was also registered against the applicant by the CBI. The applicant was arrested by CBI and consequently suspension order of applicant was passed. Trial in criminal case aheaded further.
(4) Applicant was proceeded departmentally wherein allegations were centered around misappropriation of money and for unauthorized absence. Inquiry Officer after concluding inquiry did submit his report, the Disciplinary Authority issued disagreement note and after receiving comments of the applicant qua enquiry report and disagreement note did pass the order of dismissal of applicant from service on 25.11.2003 (Annexure A/3). Applicant preferred appeal which was dismissed by the 3 OA 646/2022 Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.10.2006. In original OA, as noted above, applicant has only assailed and impugned the order of Disciplinary Authority and the order of Appellate Authority stating that Revision preferred by him is still pending.
(5) Said OA preferred by the applicant remained pending for curing of the defect but ultimately after curing the defects it came on Board, firstly on 29.04.2022 but none appeared for applicant on that day. On 25.10.2022, the another date of hearing of the OA, it was informed by the counsel for respondents that Revision Petition of the applicant has been dismissed. On next following date counsel for applicant made statement that he wants to take necessary steps regarding rejecting of the Revision and he sought adjournment. Matter thereafter came on Board on 16.01.2023 and on that date none appeared for applicant and on next following date, on 13.02.2023, this Bench did pass the following order :-
" 13.02.2023 Today is the 7th date when this OA is at notice stage of hearing. In first two dates, i.e. on 24.08.2022 & on 14.09.2022 none appeared for applicant.
On 19.10.2022, counsel for respondents took adjournment to seek instruction about Revision and on 21.10.2022 he informed at Bar that Revision filed by the applicant has already been dismissed on 19.10.2022, the counsel for applicant on that day took adjournment.
On 13.12.2022, the fifth date, counsel for applicant did submit that he wants time to take necessary steps regarding dismissal of Revision and he requested for adjournment. On next following date, none did appear for applicant.
Today, the matter when was called on its turn, proxy counsel for applicant made request for adjournment and when he was directed either to argue the matter or call his senior he made request for pass over.4 OA 646/2022
Now learned counsel, Mr. Anand Kr. Sinha has appeared for applicant and he informing that he has filed one M.A. and wants to argue the M.A. first but upon inquiry as to where is the M.A. and what is its number, he answered that he is not aware about the number of the M.A. and that M.A. was filed on 09.12.2022. No such M.A. is on record.
It appears that applicant is not serious for early disposal. Let the O.A. along with the M.A., if there is any, be listed after summer vacation. Applicant, if wish may check the status of M.A. if is filed, and may take necessary steps needed.
List on 17.07.2023."
6. In aforesaid backdrop the matter is on Board today. Learned counsel for applicant pressed the MA 33/2023 and submits that it is just and necessary to assail and quash the order passed by Revisionary Authority and therefore this MA No. 433/23 has been preferred. Regarding merit of the OA, he submits that before passing the order of dismissal from service by the Disciplinary Authority no reasonable opportunity was granted to the applicant by the Disciplinary Authority. That applicant has been charge sheeted by the respondents for same allegation upon which criminal case has been registered by the CBI and that applicant has been acquitted in said criminal case so also the Order of dismissal from service is illegal and not sustainable in law. He also urged that Revision Petition has been dismissed only after filing of the OA. He referred the observation and expression made by the Trial Court while acquitting the applicant from CBI case.
7. Learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the submission made by learned counsel for respondents are the same. However, it is enquired from her why the Revisionary Authority took so 5 OA 646/2022 many years in passing the order and she could not gave any cogent and convincible reason and merely submits that applicant was also at fault. She urged further that acquittal in criminal case cannot be ground of exoneration in departmental proceedings.
8. Considered the submissions. It is well settled that criminal trial and departmental proceedings are two different proceedings and both can run simultaneously. The motive and nature of evidence needs to be there for holding the person guilty in said proceedings are also different. Acquittal in the criminal trial cannot be the sole ground for exoneration in departmental proceedings. Herein in present case, criminal case was registered by the CBI for misappropriation of government money and applicant has been acquitted in said trial but in the departmental proceeding allegations in addition to misappropriation of government money was also of unauthorized absence. Inquiry Officer found three charges as proved and one as partially proved. Disagreement note was given by the Disciplinary Authority. The Inquiry Report is not available on record but the order of Disciplinary Authority, which is on record, is elaborate and comprehensive.
9. The OA has been filed challenging the order of year 2004 and 2006. Applicant without any hesitation can said to be lethargic in his approach. The application for condonation of delay though has been filed but at later stage. Another MA for quashing order of Revisionary Authority has also been filed. Applicant came to know about that his Revision Petition has been dismissed in October 2022 but he did not file 6 OA 646/2022 any amendment application but filed the MA, in January 2023, for quashing of the order.
10. The present one is the case where not only the applicant but respondents Revisionary Authority also can be said to be lackadaisical in discharge of his duty. Revisionary Authority has taken about sixteen years to decide the Revision but merely this fact alone cannot be said to be sufficient to interfere and overall aspects have to be seen. Order of the Revisionary Authority is not the part and parcel of the OA, no MA for amendment in OA to incorporate Revisionary Authority's Order in pleading of the OA is also there. In criminal trial applicant has stated to be acquitted but when in the Disciplinary proceeding one additional charge of unauthorized absence was also there; and hence taking note of all these surrounding circumstances as well as the facts that no sufficient convincible reason or material showing violation of natural justice in conduct of proceedings appears to be there, interference by the Tribunal after 18-19 years shall not be justified nor warranted and therefore the OA and pending MAs are dismissed.
(Sunil Kumar Sinha) [M.C. Verma] Member (A) Member [J] PKL/-