Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
K Govindan vs D/O Post on 7 February, 2024
1 OA 636/2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00636/2014
Dated the 7th day of February Two Thousand Twenty Four
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J)
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, Member (A)
K.Govindan, S/o. A. Kuppan,
No. 376, Old Colony,
Kilpaliyapattu BO a/w Pachal SO,
Chengam Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai District. Pin 606704. ....Applicant
By Advocate M/s. R. Malaichamy
Vs
1.Union of India,
rep by the Postmaster General,
Chennai City Region,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600002.
2 OA 636/2014
2.Superintendent of Post Offices,
Tiruvannamalai Division,
Tiruvannamalai 606601.
3.Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (OD) &
Ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority,
O/o the Superintendent of Post Offices,
Tiruvannamalai Division,
Tiruvannamalai 606601. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. S. Nagarajan
3 OA 636/2014
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member(A)) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. To call for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to his show cause notice made in No. F6/III-1/11-12 and the order of removing the Applicant from engagement made in No. F6//III-1/11-12 dated 25.09.2013 and the order of 1st Respondent made in memo No. VIG/Pet/1-19/2013/CCR dated 01.01.2014 and set aside the same, consequent to
2. Direct the respondents to reinstate the Applicant into service with all service benefits and
3. To pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. The applicant has stated his case as follows :-
i. While the Applicant was working as GDS MD/MC, Kilpaliyapattu BO, the 3 Respondent issued a charge sheet, dated 16.11.2011, under Rule 10 of the GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011, to him. He denied the charges levelled against him, vide his reply, dated 24.11.2011. He became a scapegoat on the foul play played by some miscreants in his village on their usual inducement. All these occurrences were happened by a few personal vendetta and nothing else other than that. In the regular inquiry all the state witnesses not only disowned the contents in the statements alleged to be obtained from them but also deposed in the inquiry against the charge framed against the Applicant. But, the Inquiry Officer held the charges as proved, based on 4 OA 636/2014 the preliminary investigation report. He has conducted the inquiry in total violation of the principles of natural justice.
ii. According to the Applicant, the 3rd Respondent, on considering the inquiry report and the reply of the Applicant, imposed the punishment of debarring the Applicant from appearing in the recruitment examination for the post of Multi Tasking Group -C and Postman for a period of 3 years, by an order, dated 30.04.2013. But, the 2nd Respondent, suo motu, reviewed the order of punishment, dated 30.04.2013, imposed by the 2nd Respondent, under Rule 19 (1) of the GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011, by issuing a show cause notice, dated 01.08.2013. In his show cause notice, he has stated that the Applicant is not a fit person to be retained in the department. He further stated in his notice that he proposed to enhance the penalty to that of removal from engagement. As decided by him already, the Applicant was removed from engagement, by an order, dated 25.09.2013. It was confirmed by the 1st Respondent, by an order, dated 01.01.2014. It is alleged by the applicant that the 2 nd Respondent had already made up his mind to remove the Applicant from engagement.
Hence, his notice, dated 01.08.2013, and his order, dated 25.09.2013, and the order of the 1st Respondent, dated 01.01.2014, are liable to be set aside by this Tribunal. iii. Another submission made by the Applicant is that imposing major punishment of removal from engagement on the Applicant is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.
5 OA 636/2014
3.i. From the facts of the case, as given by the applicant, it is seen that while he was working as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer /Mail Carrier (GDS MD/MC), Kilpaliyapattu BO a/w Pachal SO, the 3rd Respondent issued a charge sheet under Rule 10 of the GDS (C & E) Rules, 2011, to the Applicant alleging that he was entrusted with Rs. 1000 payable to Smt. Salammal towards Money Order payment, but he had deducted a sum of Rs. 50 and paid Rs. 950 only to Smt. Salammal. ii. The Applicant was also chargesheeted as he was entrusted with Rs. 1000 payable to one Rajathi and another Rs. 1000 payable to one Neela, towards Money Order payments, but he did not pay the same to them and utilized the said MO payment proceeds for his personal use. The Applicant was further charge sheeted as he did not maintain the Postman Book for the period from 18.06.2011 tο 28.06.2011, and, thus, failed to maintain devotion to duty iii. The applicant contends that the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry in total violation of the Rules in force. He has not followed the regular procedure as required for inquiry proceedings, as per the GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011, Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and Article 311(2) of the Constitution. iv. The Applicant states that he was not allowed to peruse the original documents. Out of 22 additional defence documents requested for by the Applicant, he was supplied only 15 documents. Request for producing the only defence witness by the Appicant was rejected by the Inquiry Officer.
6 OA 636/2014v. The Applicant states the Inquiry Officer submitted the report to the 3rd Respondent based on the statements obtained during the preliminary inquiry stating that the charges levelled against the Applicant were proved. The daily order sheets would prove that the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry in total violation of the principles of natural justice.
vi. The Applicant also states that he had submitted a detailed written statement, dated 29.12.2012, against the IO's report. The 3rd Respondent, on considering the report of the Enquiry Officer and the written statement submitted by the Applicant to the inquiry report, imposed punishment on the Applicant by an order, dated 30.04.2013, whereby he was "debarred from appearing in the recruitment examination for the post of Multi Tasking Group-C and Postman for a period of 3 years while ordering to reinstate the Applicant on duty.
vii. The Applicant states that he accepted the punishment imposed by the 3rd Respondent, on moral grounds. As ordered by the 3rd Respondent, he joined duty and performed his work with utmost care and devotion. He did not prefer any appeal against the order, dated 30.04 2013.
viii. To the shock and surprise of the Applicant, the 2 nd Respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 01.08.2013, proposing to enhance the penalty already imposed to that of removal from engagement. The Applicant submitted a detailed reply, dated 14.08.2013. But, the 2nd Respondent, without considering the various points raised by 7 OA 636/2014 the Applicant in his reply, removed the Applicant from engagement, vide his order, dated 25.09.2013. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred a Revision Petition, dated 07.10.2013, to the 1st Respondent, but that was also rejected by R-1, vide his order, dated 01.01.2014. Hence, this application.
4. Among the grounds raised by the Applicant, we find the following :-
i. The Applicant did not commit any irregularities, as alleged by the Respondents. The depositions given by the state witnesses during the regular inquiry are the evidence for the same. Hence, removal of the Applicant from engagement, by the 2 nd Respondent, and confirmation of the same by the 1 st Respondent is arbitrary and illegal.
ii. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry in total violation of the principles of natural justice. He had assumed the role of Presenting Officer and concluded, without man and material evidence, that the charges levelled against the Applicant stand proved.
iii. As the Inquiry Officer denied some additional documents to the Applicant, the Applicant was denied reasonable opportunity to defend his case. The Inquiry Officer also rejected the request of the Applicant to bring in his defence witness. This is arbitrary and illegal.8 OA 636/2014
iv. It is submitted that all the state witnesses deposed in the inquiry against the charges framed against the Applicant. This fact has not been considered by Respondent nos. 2 and 3. The Respondents relied basically upon the alleged statements in the preliminary investigation which were recorded behind the back of the Applicant, which is unjustifiable.
v. Statements of Smt. Salammal's (SW1), Smt. Rajathi's (SW3), Smt. Neela's (SW7), Smt. G. Thirumalai's (SW10), during their deposition before the Inquiry Officer disproved Articles I to IV.
vi. The 2nd Respondent, in his notice, had already made up his mind to impose the major penalty of removal from engagement. Hence, issuing show cause notice, dated 01.08.2013, was is only an empty formality.
vii. The punishment imposed by the 2nd Respondent on the Applicant is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.
5.i. The respondents have filed their reply opposing the relief prayed for by the applicant. According to them, on receipt of the information by the SP, Tiruvannamalai, the 2nd Respondent, over phone, from the District Collector, based on the complaints received from the OAP beneficiaries about short/non-payment of OAP MOs, enquiry was taken up which revealed that the applicant, Shri K.Govindan, while working as GDSMDMC Kilpaliyapattu BO a/w Pachal SO, was responsible for short 9 OA 636/2014 payment and non-payment of OAP money orders. The applicant was proceeded against under Rule 10, of the GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011, by the 3rd Respondent, vide memo No ADA/5/2011, dated 16.11.2011, in respect of the four articles of charge. Copies of additional documents, as called for by the Applicant, were also supplied. ii. The 3rd Respondent, considering all the records, imposed the penalty of debarring the Applicant from appearing in the recruitment examination for the post of Multi Tasking Group-C and Postman for a period of three years, vide Memo No.ADA/5/2011, dated 30.04.2013. After that, the time limit of 3 months, for preferring appeal, expired by 30.7 2013. No appeal was filed against the order of punishment.
iii. The above punishment was reviewed by the 2nd respondent and he found the same inadequate for the proven charges and, accordingly, as provided for by Rule 19(1) of the GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011, a show cause notice, calling for the representation of the applicant, as to why the penalty should not be enhanced to that of Removal from engagement was issued, vide Memo No F6/II-1/11-12, dated 01.08.2013, of the 2nd Respondent, directing the applicant to submit his reply within 15 days. The above memo was received by the applicant on 03.08.2013 and he submitted his representation, dated 14.08.2013. Explaining his family circumstances, he stated that the allegations against him were false and without any proof and requested for personal hearing, which was permitted by the 2nd Respondent 10 OA 636/2014 iv. The 2nd Respondent, after considering all records, the submissions made by applicant during the personal hearing and the facts and circumstances of the case, ordered to enhance the penalty to that of removal from engagement, by passing speaking orders, vide memo No. F6/III-1/11-12, dated 25.09.2013. v. Thereafter, the Applicant submitted petition, dated 07.10.2013, to the 1 st Respondent. The 1st Respondent, while considering the petition observed that there was no sufficient reason to interfere with the enhanced penalty, and, accordingly, rejected the petition. Challenging the enhancement of penalty imposed by the 2nd Respondent, which was confirmed by the 1st Respondent, the present OA is filed. The learned counsel for the Respondents contended that the order of enhanced penalty was issued considering the seriousness of the proven charges, which rendered the Applicant unfit to continue in service.
vi. It is further submitted by the respondents that it is a settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probability is sufficient. vii. During the preliminary investigation, the applicant admitted the short/non- payment of the OAP money orders by him and also credited the amounts under UCR. The statements which were recorded during preliminary investigation and introduced as state exhibits could not be ignored. A letter, dated 29.6.2011, was submitted by the applicant, addressed to the SPM, Pachal SO, seeking permission to credit the amount 11 OA 636/2014 defrauded, under UCR, voluntarily. The credit of amount under UCR shows that he was responsible for the nonpayment and short payment of the Money Orders. The applicant would not have credited the amount otherwise. The charges leveled against the applicant were grave in nature and were proved, which speak of his lack of integrity and devotion to duty.
viii. The affected OAP beneficiaries are poor and elderly and solely dependent on the OAP money order for their survival and since frauds in OAP money orders could be a question of life and death for the beneficiary, deterrent punishment has to be awarded. Therefore, the enhanced penalty is commensurate with the gravity of offence committed by the applicant, as per the respondents. ix. According to the respondents, this Tribunal, in the order, dated 22.11.2012, in the case of OA No 262/2011, filed by Shri. P. Ponnurangam, relying on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Grido Ltd & Anr Vs Sri Sadananda Doloi and Ors 2012 (1) AISLJ 378, held that as long as there is no procedural irregularity or violation of any statutory provisions, the Tribunal cannot interfere with the decision taken. It is further submitted that, in the order, dated 14.02.2013, in WP No. 1428/2011, in the case of UOI Vs Shri V Loganthan, Ex GDS BPM, T.C. Kandigai BO, Kanchipuram Division, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras held that the Tribunal/Court cannot act as an appellate authority/forum and re- appreciate the evidence and arrive at its own findings and upheld the order of penalty 12 OA 636/2014 of Dismissal from service, observing that in any event, the quantum of loss is irrelevant.
x. It is also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the following cases, has observed that the Courts cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed on the Government servants for the proven misconduct unless the punishment imposed, shocks the conscience of the Court /Tribunal.
a. Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs Ganayutham 1997 SCC L&S) 1806.
b. Order, dated 17.08.2006, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs KG Sony (2006 SCC (L&S) 1568) xi. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the penalty of removal or dismissal for the charge of misappropriation, whether the amount is large or small. In this regard, the following have been cited -
a. Case of UP State Road Transport Corporation Vs Suresh Chand Sharma in Civil Appeal 3086 of 2007, b. Case of Municipal Committee Bahadurgha Vs Krishnan Bihari & others in AIR 1996 SC 1249, 13 OA 636/2014 xii. Recently, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, in the case of Namachivam Vs State Express Transport Corporation, held that once misconduct by a public servant is confirmed, there is nothing wrong in removing him or her from service, whether the amount of money involved is small or big.
xiii. According to the Respondents, all the above judgements are squarely applicable to the case of applicant. Therefore, the order of 2 nd Respondent, confirming the enhanced penalty of removal of the applicant. imposed by the 3 rd Respondent, are not challengeable.
6. The applicant has filed a rejoinder contesting the claim of the respondents in their reply.
7.i. The respondents further filed reply to the rejoinder filed by the applicant. They have mentioned that in the daily Order Sheet No. 1, it is noted that perusal of documents mentioned in Annexure III of the chargesheet was allowed to the charged official and they were compared with Xerox copies of documents on the next date. Daily Order Sheet No 3 noted that 15 additional documents were supplied to the charged official and the applicant perused the copies with the original. Out of 22 documents, 15 documents were permitted by the IO and these documents were supplied during the inquiry. The IO is the competent authority to permit the documents which are relevant to the charge sheet. Rejection of additional documents 14 OA 636/2014 and additional witnesses is the decision of the IO. The applicant raised this question during Rule 10 inquiry and this is an afterthought only.
ii. Respondents have also stated that it is but natural that in due course when formal inquiries take place, some of the witnesses turn hostile owing to sympathy to the charged official. All the payees have preferred claims and the same were settled by the respondent Department.
iii. They have contended that there was no irregularity in the appointment of the IO and it was as per DG's instructions, dt. 20.09.1976. The applicant was given every opportunity to defend his case during the inquiry. There is no provision, in the rules, to draw minutes of personal hearing as the same is recorded in the proceedings. As requested for by him, personal hearing was permitted and he appeared before the appellate authority, viz. The Supdt of Post Offices, Tiruvannamalai Division, on 03.09.13, at 11:00 hrs, along with his defence assistant and expressed his grievances. After considering all aspects, the Supdt of Post Offices, Tiruvannamalai Division, ordered enhanced penalty of 'Removal from engagement', vide Memo No. F6/III- 1/11-12, dated 25.09.2013.
iv. Calling the arguments of the Applicant an afterthought, they have pleaded for dismissal of the OA.
8. Heard both sides and perused connected records 15 OA 636/2014
9. From the records, it is clear that the allegation is the charge memos are well- founded and the Applicant chose to make good the amounts deducted or totally misappropriated by him out of the Money Orders, meant for the Old Age Pensioners. He had also not kept the books during the relevant period. The case that, by his actions he had violated the provisions of Rules 110 [1], 121 and 127 of the Postal Manual Vol.VI Part III read with Note below NB 4 under Caption 'Postman' of Chapter III of the said Volume, had, thus, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as enjoined in Rule 21 of the Gramin Dak Sevaks [Conduct and Engagement] Rules, 2011. It is also found that the said Shri.K.Govindan, the Applicant had, voluntarily, credited a sum of Rs.2100/- under UCR,at Pachal BO, on 29.6.2011, towards the non-payment/short payment of the MOs. He had, after duly perusing the relevant Postman Book, in his statement, dated 29.6.2011, given before the IP, Tiruvannamalai Sub Dn., stated that he did not write the Postman Book after 17.6.2011.
10. Without appraising or re-evaluating the evidence during the departmental inquiry, it must be observed that, in response to the Enquiry Report, forwarded to him on 13.12.2012, in his representation, dt. 24.12.2012, the Applicant has submitted as follows:-
"In this regard, if, the Adhoc Dis Authority feels if I committed direct or indirect felony, I may please be excused. I feel sorry for the trouble caused in the way of Rule 10 Inquiry. I may please excused and reinstate into service. Kindly exonerate 16 OA 636/2014 from the foisted charge of articles for which Act of kindness, I and my whole family Members are ever thankful and grateful to you Sir. "
11. Taking into account the findings during the enquiry and the representation and request of the Applicant, as above, in the order, dt. 30.04.2013, (A-5), the Recruiting/Disciplinary Authority fairly wrote as follows:-
"12. Hence considering purely his family circumstances and social impact, if he is taken out of employment on his family and the young children and with the hope that the CGDS would have learnt a lesson from the mental agony he underwent during the period of his put off duty from 29.6.11 to till today, I am inclined to show leniency with a hope that the leniency now shown will be utilized by him to conduct himself in a befitting manner of a Gramin Dak Sevak on whom the confidence of the public and the department is kept upon and with a hope that he will not come up for such adverse notice in future, Accordingly, ORDER "I, L.Chandrasekaran, ASPOS [OD], Tiruvannamalai Dn, Tiruvannamalai 606601, in exercise of the powers of the recruiting authority here by order that Sri.K.Govindan, GDSMD/MC (POD) Kilpaliyapattu BO a/w Pachal SO, be debarred from appearing in the recruitment examination for the post of multi tasking Group C and Postman for a period of three years.
"He shall be reinstated to duty forthwith."
12. It is worth noting that the Applicant accepted this penalty and never appealed against it.
17 OA 636/2014
13. But the Revisionary Authority (R-2), vide the impugned order, dt. 25.09.2013, (A-8), enhanced it. The same was confirmed by the PMG (R-1), vide order, dt. 01.01.2014 (A-10). Both these orders have been challenged here.
14. In both, and Reply to Show Cause Notice, vide letter, dt. 14.08.2013 (A-7), and his Revision Petition, dt. 07.10.2013, (A-9), the submissions are as follows -
".... if still SPO's feels that I have committed any mistake directly or indirectly, I may please be excused. I feel extremely sorry and regret. I assure you sir that I will not commit any kind of mistake in my future life."
"....I assure you sir that I shall not indulge in any such activities in my future life."
15. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in their judgment, dt. 17.8.2006, in UoI Vs. K.G. Soni has observed as follows :-
" In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors. (1995 [6] SCC 749) it was observed:
"A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."18 OA 636/2014
16. This Tribunal, in its order, dt. 25.09.2023, in OA No. 384/2015, has taken a view as follows:-
"24. The applicant's prayer is for setting aside the show cause notice, dt. 11.03.2014, resulting in her removal from employment, vide order, dt. 12.09.2014, and the subsequent order, dt. 06.01.2015, rejecting the appeal of the applicant and confirming the enhanced punishment of removal from engagement. It is to be noted that in a similar case, a well reasoned order was passed by this Tribunal on 02.08.2018 in OA 858/2017, wherein it was observed as under:-
"Although there was a temporary misappropriation of a meager amount of Rs. 15,661/-, there was no intention on the part of the applicant to defraud the authorities. He was removed on the basis of his admission that he had temporarily retained the money. There was no full fledged enquiry to prove temporary misappropriation of the sum. The word "misappropriation" has a definite connotation. Cambridge English Dictionary defines it as to steal something that you have been trusted to take care of and use it for your own good". The department has failed to prove by way of enquiry that the temporary retention was with a motive to use it for his own good. Therefore, although the applicant admitted his guilt of having not credited the premium on time, we remit the matter back to the appellate authority to consider the matter sympathetically for imposition of any lesser punishment, other than the dismissal or removal from service, which would rob the employee of all his earned benefits. Let appropriate orders be issued within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
25. In another similar OA 809/2014 also, this Tribunal has observed in its order dt. 31.01.2023 as below:-
"8. From the memorandum as well as inquiry proceedings and the reply statement of the department, it is not found that the applicant is a habitual offender for any act of fraud of money. There is no adverse remarks in his service career. No other misconduct in his service is found. The order of removal from service, in our view is shockingly disproportionate. In the case of State Bank of Mysore & ors Vs. M. C. Krishnappa reported in (2011) 7 SCC 325, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "It is well settled that punishment is primarily a function of management and courts rarely interfere with quantum of punishment unless it is unreasonable and unduly harsh". By taking into the entire conspectus of the case and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned order of removal from service dt. 28.03.2003, impugned order dt. 20.05.2004 rejecting the appeal and the impugned order dt. 03.12.2013 rejecting 19 OA 636/2014 the representation of applicant for reinstatement. The respondents are hereby directed to consider the applicant's case for award of a lesser punishment instead of removal / dismissal from service."
26. Admittedly, during the inquiry, the complainant, Smt. N. Palaniammal, and two other witnesses could not be examined by the IO nor the applicant could get an opportunity to cross-examine them and also not received certain documents for defending herself. Still she accepted the initial punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority, vide order, dt. 03.10.2013. However, the said punishment was enhanced, subsequently, which was not only disproportionate but very harsh looking at the applicant's 19 years of dedicated service from the year 1991. It is not found that the applicant is a habitual offender. We are, therefore, of the view that the enhanced punishment for removal from service is shockingly disproportionate and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Mysore & ors Vs. M. C. Krishnappa referred to above "It is well settled that punishment is primarily a function of management and courts rarely interfere with quantum of punishment unless it is unreasonable and unduly harsh". In her appeal, dt. 20.09.2014, she had only requested for setting aside the enhanced punishment of removal from employment which shows her acceptance of the initial punishment.
27. In view of the above, the show cause notice, dt. 11.03.2014, impugned order, dt. 12.09.2014, enhancing the original penalty, and the impugned proceedings, dt. 06.01.2015, rejecting the appeal of the applicant and confirming the enhanced punishment, are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant into service with all consequential service benefits within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondents are at liberty to conduct a de novo inquiry if any, afresh following the due process of law which shall be completed within a period of three months.
28. Accordingly, OA is disposed of. No order as to costs."
17. In the present case, admittedly, some of the main witnesses, as per order sheet, dt. 02.05.2012, have been declared hostile, during the enquiry under Rule 10 of the GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011, into the chargesheet, dt. 16.11.2011. However, the charges have been held as proved, based on the evidence available and the amount of Rs. 2,100/- was deposited by the charged officer himself, voluntarily. He has been 20 OA 636/2014 punished by way of being debarred from appearing in the recruitment examination for the post of Multi Tasking Group C and Postman for a period of three years. The Applicant did not challenge the punishment. This punishment was, subsequently, enhanced to Removal from Engagement.
18. On considering the matter, in its totality, we are of the opinion that the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, vide proceedings, dt. 30.04.2013, is well balanced and has addressed all the aspects in detail.
19. In the interest of justice, and since no additional grounds are furnished in the subsequent orders of R-2 and R-3 for enhancing the punishment, the impugned orders, dt. 25.09.2013 and 01.01.2014, are quashed and set aside.
20. The OA is allowed, accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Member (A) Member (J)
07.02.2024
SKSI