Karnataka High Court
D M Srinivasa vs Union Of India on 27 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:34225-DB
WP No. 27119 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO.27119 OF 2023 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
D.M.SRINIVASA,
S/O D.K.MARA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
EX-GDS BPM, DUDDA BO,
A/W V.C. FARM SO,
MANDYA DIVISION - 571 401,
RESIDING AT DUDDA POST,
MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 405.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RADHAKRISHNA HOLLA A., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by K G
RENUKAMBA AND:
Location: High
Court of 1. UNION OF INDIA,
Karnataka
BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,
DAK BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 001
2. DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES,
OFFICE OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL,
S.K.REGION,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:34225-DB
WP No. 27119 of 2023
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,
MANDYA DIVISION,
MANDYA - 571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYAKARA SHETTY H., CGSC FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER
OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31/10/2023
PASSED BY THE CAT IN OA/170/00034/2022, ANNEXURE-A,
ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 31.10.2023 in OA No.170/00034/2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench ('the Tribunal' for short), whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the said OA.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:34225-DB WP No. 27119 of 2023
2. The challenge in the OA was to the order dated 11.08.2021 whereby the petitioner was removed from service with immediate effect and the order dated 17.12.2021 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
3. Suffice to state, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner while he was working as GDS BPM (Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master) wherein the following charges were framed against him:
"i. He had accepted Rs.2,500/- deposit into SSA account of Kum. D.Y.Lavanya, on 03.09.2016, 07.10.2016 & 21.11.2016, but failed to account for the said amount into branch office account.
ii. He had accepted Rs.7,000/- deposit in to SSA account of' Kum. Dhanyashree on various dates from 08.06.2016 to 15.11.2016, but failed to account the same into branch office account.
iii. He had accepted Rs.7,000/- deposit into SSA account of Kum. Manasa on various dates from 24.05.2016 to 16.12.2016, but failed to account the same into branch office account.-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:34225-DB WP No. 27119 of 2023 iv. He had accepted Rs.9,000/- into SSA account of Kum. B.C.Hema on 13.04.2016 and 19.12.2016, but failed to account the same into branch office account.
v. He had accepted Rs.18,000/- deposit into RD account of Sri.D.S.Raghupathaiah on various dates from 01.04.2016 to 05.12.2016, but failed to account the same into branch office account.
vi. He had withdrawn Rs.500/- without the knowledge of the depositor from S.B. account number 2141008365 on 30.11.2015."
4. The proceedings were held by the Enquiry Officer who submitted his report dated 14.06.2021 holding first Article of charge as not proved. He has proved the other 5 Articles of charge. The respondent No.3 enclosing a copy of the enquiry report, vide his letter dated 14.07.2021 with his dissenting note in respect of finding against the first Article of charge, had asked the petitioner to submit his representation within 15 days. The petitioner submitted his representation on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. After considering the findings of Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority taking a view that all the Articles of charge have been proved -5- NC: 2024:KHC:34225-DB WP No. 27119 of 2023 against the petitioner, imposed penalty of removal from service. The challenge made by the petitioner before the Tribunal was negated by the Tribunal by stating in paragraphs No.14 and 15 as under:
"14. In the present case, the enquiry has been held by a Competent Authority, according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings. The Disciplinary Authority has come to the conclusion based upon the available documentary evidence, that the applicant had indeed been guilty and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty while handling the deposits made by various depositors in the SSA accounts, in his Post Office. The appeal filed against the penalty order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has been duly considered and then upheld by the Appellate Authority.
15. The charges proved against the applicant are grave since they indicate a lack of integrity which is crucial to the functioning of the Postal Department. The action of the applicant betrays the trust imposed on him both by the Postal Department as well as by the public, as a public functionary, while handing money which is the property of the depositors. The penalty of removal from engagement imposed on the applicant cannot be considered as shockingly disproportionate given the facts and circumstances of the case."-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:34225-DB WP No. 27119 of 2023
5. The only submission made by Sri. Radhakrishna Holla.A, learned counsel for the petitioner is, the conclusion of the enquiry officer resulting in the removal of the petitioner's service is totally perverse in as much as there was no evidence on record to prove the charges. Even otherwise, it is his submission that the penalty of removal from service is disproportionate to the charges which have been framed.
6. We are unable to agree with the submission made by Sri. Holla moreso when sufficient evidence has come on record to hold the charges No.2 to 5 as proved. This is clear from the analysis drawn by the Enquiry Officer against each of the charges in as much as the amount said to have been deposited by the depositors received by the petitioner has not been received by various Officers who are required to receive the same. We have gone through the report of the Enquiry Officer in-detail. Perusal thereof would reveal that the charges No.2 to 5 have been proved beyond doubt. Even charge No.1 is concerned, -7- NC: 2024:KHC:34225-DB WP No. 27119 of 2023 the Disciplinary Authority after giving a note of disagreement, has proved that charge as well. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.C.Chaturvedi -Vs.- Union of India and Others [(1995) 6 SCC 749] more specifically paragraphs No.12 and 13 to hold that the judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. That apart, the Disciplinary Authority is the sole Judge on facts. Similarly, the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh and Others -Vs.- Chitra Venkata Rao [AIR 1975 SC 2151] wherein the Supreme Court has referred to the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has clearly held that the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or relevancy of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High -8- NC: 2024:KHC:34225-DB WP No. 27119 of 2023 Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. We agree with the said conclusion drawn by the Tribunal. Given the nature of facts, we are of the view that even the penalty of removal cannot be contested by the petitioner for the simple reason that the charges against the petitioner are grave. Hence, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
8. The writ petition being without merit, is dismissed.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32