Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Paramjit Singh Ex. Edbpm B.O. Bripur In ... vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary To ... on 17 November, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH CHANDIGARH O.A.NO. 1091/PB/2010 Decided on: 17.11.2011 Coram: Honble Mrs. Shyama Dogra, Member (J) Honble Mrs. Promilla Issar, Member(A) Paramjit Singh Ex. EDBPM B.O. Bripur in AC Vis Sursingh PO, Amritsar (now R/o Village and Post Office Bakipur, Tehsil and Distt. Tarn Taran, Punjab) .Applicant Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary to govt. of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts and Telegraph, New Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh.
3. Post Master General, Punjab Region, Chandigarh.
4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Amrtisar Divn. Amritsar.
..Respondents Present: Mr. B.S. Mittal, counsel for the applicant Mr. A.L. Vohra, counsel for the respondents Order (Oral) BY HONBLE MRS SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER(J)
1. In the present O.A., the applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 18.08.2010(Annexure A-6) vide which his representation for his re-appointment as Ex. GDS BPM Bakipur SO after his acquittal by the Trial Court, has been rejected, with further prayer to quash the impugned order of his removal dated 27.06.2001(Annexure A-1).
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the applicant was charge sheeted for misappropriation of Rs.3809/-, which was found short. The applicant failed to deposit the Govt. cash in the Accounts office within the stipulated time. Thus, he was alleged to have violated the provisions of the relevant rules with further allegation to have misused the public money and utilized it for his personal use. The applicant later on credited the said amount to the Govt. account under the Head U.C.R. at Lawrence Road PO (ASR) on 21.06.1999, incorporated in the accounts of Amritsar PO on 22.06.1999. In his defence, the applicant denied the charges. Therefore, an Inquiry Officer was appointed and during the proceedings of the inquiry, the applicant has admitted all the charges, leading to the passing of order of his removal vide order dated 27.06.2011 (Annexure A-1).
3. The applicant, however, submits that against this order of his removal, he filed an appeal to the Appellate Authority on 24.07.2001 and gave reasons for having admitted the charges that it was done by him under pressure by Respondent No. 3, who had given him an assurance that in case he admits the charge, a lenient view would be taken, keeping in view that he had already deposited the alleged embezzled amount.
4. The further contention of the applicant is that on some other charge of misappropriation of public money amounting to Rs.6670/- , an FIR was lodged against him on 22.08.2000 under Section 409 IPC and in that criminal case, the Trial Court acquitted him of the charge vide its order dated 31.07.2007 (Annexure A-3). Therefore, after acquittal from the charge, the applicant filed a representation for his re-appointment, keeping in view that the applicant was not charge-sheeted in the departmental proceedings for the charge of misappropriation of Rs.6670/-. However, the representation of the applicant has been rejected on 08.05.2008 vide Annexure A-4 on the ground that he preferred an appeal beyond the limitation period. That order was challenged by the applicant in O.A. No. 411/PB/2009 and vide order dated 15.07.2010, the case was remanded to the concerned authority to decide this case on merits after giving the applicant a person hearing. Thus, in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, an opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the applicant and thereafter the impugned order dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure A-6) has been passed by the respondents.
5. The main grievance of the applicant is that since he was acquitted of the criminal charge by the Trial Court, his case should have been considered sympathetically. No charge of embezzlement was proved in the Trial Court and no departmental proceedings were initiated against the applicant for the said embezzlement of Rs.6670/-. So far as the other charge of misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 3809/- is concerned, he made the said admission under duress, therefore, it should not be treated as admission on his part and the respondents should be directed to re-appoint him, in the given facts and circumstances of the case. He further avers that the respondents have not given any substantial reasons for rejecting his case while passing the impugned order.
6. The respondents have filed a written statement and contested the submissions of the applicant on the ground that the acquittal of the applicant in the criminal case has no relevance in the matter as the charge against the applicant for embezzlement of Rs. 3809/- has already been proved and no appeal was received by the respondents as alleged by the applicant, which is placed on record by him as Annexure A-2. Moreover, while the case was remanded by this Court, the Appellate Authority has taken into consideration both the cases and since it is the prerogative of the authorities concerned to reinstate the delinquent on his acquittal by the criminal Court and the impugned order is since supported with reasons that the applicant was acquitted by the Court on the benefit of doubt, therefore, he cannot be said to have been exonerated on merits and was not found fit to be reinstated. Therefore, this O.A. calls for no interference of this Court and the order of removal passed on 27.06.2010 vide Annexure A-1 still survives, which was passed in respect of the charge levelled against the applicant for embezzlement of Rs.3809/-, an inquiry was conducted and in the inquiry proceedings, the applicant himself had admitted this fact that he had used this money for personal purposes. He had admitted that since his wife suddenly fell ill, therefore, he, under compulsion, used the Govt. money. He further submitted that this fact has been taken in his grounds of appeal also, which is alleged to have been filed vide Annexure A-2. Therefore, the applicant has no case in his favour and the O.A. deserves to be dismissed.
7. The respondents have placed on record Annexure R-2 i.e. the proceedings of the Inquiry Officer, whereby the applicant has admitted his guilt.
8. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant to rebut all these contentions made by the respondents in the written statement.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case. After a perusal of the pleadings on record, it appears that the applicant has misappropriated public money twice; firstly the amount of Rs. 3809/- and secondly the amount of Rs. 6670/-. Regarding his first misappropriation, he was charge-sheeted and on his denial of the charges, an Inquiry Officer was appointed and before the Inquiry Officer he admitted his guilt to the effect that Rs. 3809/- was found short with him and he had returned this amount on 20.06.1999 i.e. after two days of verification by the concerned officer, with the promise that he will never repeat such a mistake and he also tendered an apology for that action. It is found from this statement of the applicant that he has nowhere said that the statement was made by him under pressure. Even in his grounds of appeal (Annexure A-2) filed against the order of removal, he has nowhere averred that he had admitted the charges under some pressure from the Inquiry Officer or other officials of the post office.
10. So far as the second misappropriation is concerned, the department has not preferred to issue a charge-sheet against him, however, the criminal case was registered, in which he was acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt vide order dated 31.07.2007 of the Trial Court. After acquittal by the Criminal Court, the applicant represented for his reinstatement vide his request dated 17.03.2008. Since his request was not entertained by the respondents for the reasons that the period of filing an appeal had already elapsed, therefore, his case was remanded to be considered on merits by this Tribunal. The impugned rejection order (Annexure A-6) is an outcome of the directions given by this Court. 11. 11. After a perusal of the impugned order, we are of the view that no interference is called for in this case as, as per rules, it is the prerogative of the administrative authorities to see as to whether after acquittal by the Criminal Court, the delinquent is fit to be reinstated in service or not. As is seen in the present case, the applicant was acquitted by the Criminal Court by giving him the benefit of doubt. He was given an opportunity before the Inquiry officer to defend himself in another case of misappropriation, but he had admitted his charge without any condition and the authorities have found him not fit to be retained in the service. Therefore, the impugned order, which is found to be fully supported with reasons, warrants no interference by this Court. Therefore, finding no merit in his case, this O.A. is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(PROMILLA ISSAR) (SHYAMA DOGRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
PLACE: Chandigarh
Dated: 17.11.2011
mw
- 5- O.A. No. 1091/PB/2010