Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Raj Kumar Sharma vs D/O Post on 1 May, 2023
Item 27
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.3201
3201/2015
Reserved on ::10.04.2023
Pronounced on ::01.05.2023
Hon'ble Mr.. R.N. Singh
Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar
Kumar, Member (A)
Raj Kumar Sharma
S/o Shri P.S. Sharma
(Ex-Postman,
Postman, Baraut)
R/o Pritam Singh Sharma House No.208
Gali No.10, Karkardooma,
Delhi -110
- 092. ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Deepak Verma )
Versus
1. The Secretary
Ministry of Communication & I.T.
Dept. of Posts,
Posts Dak Bhawan
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Post Master General
U.P. Circle, Lucknow -226001.
226001.
3. The Director Postal Services
Office of Post Master General
Bareilly Div. Bareilly-243001.
Bareilly 243001.
4. The Sr. Supdt. of Posts
Meerut Division,
Meerut
Meerut-250 001. ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Hanu Bhaska
Bhaskar)
2
O.A. No.3201/2015
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A):
By way of this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief(s) :-
"(i) Quash & set aside the Memo No.Vig/P-
128/2013/5 dated 26.8.2014, Memo No.F-
05/01/2001-02 dated 6.10.2009, Charge Memo dated 25.10.2002 (Annexure A1 to A-3-A)
(ii) direct the respondent to treat the applicant on duty as if no charge sheet was initiated with all consequential monetary & other service benefits.
(iii) Any other or further orders the Hon'ble Tribunal may pass in the interest of justice along with costs."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was working as Postman at Nehru Road Baraut. His responsibility was to distribute mail in his beat. The applicant claims that in addition, he also assisted the Sub Post Master, Nehru Road Baraut in discharge of his work during the relevant period as per verbal instructions of the Sub Post Master. It is alleged that during the course of such work at Sub Post Office, he prepared discharge journal and endorsed the remark of payment under application of transfer of lost/stolen NSC/KVP. It was found that such unauthorised working by the applicant resulted in huge financial loss to the Department. 3 O.A. No.3201/2015
3. Consequently on 10.07.2001, the applicant was placed under suspension and on 25.10.2002 he was served with a memorandum of charge, stating that he had been working unauthorisedly in Sub Post Office, Nehru Road Baraut from 23.03.2000 to 24.05.2001 which was in violation of the relevant Rules. The charge against the applicant was as under:
"Article-1 Shri Raj Kumar Sharma, Postman, Baraut Head Office while working on the post of Postman had unauthorisedly carried on work of Sub Post Master in Sub Post Office, Nehru Road, Baraut from 23.03.2000 to 24.05.2001 which is contrary to Rule 132 of Postal Manual Vol.VI Part-III and in this manner has worked unlike a government employee, thus violated Rule 3(1) (iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
4. The applicant submitted his reply to the said charge and a departmental inquiry was initiated against him, which found the charge proved. Consequently, the disciplinary authority passed an order of penalty of removal dated 31.07.2003. The applicant filed an appeal to the Appellate Authority, which was rejected, confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The applicant subsequently approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench vide OA No.1185/2008. Vide the order dated 15.01.2009, the 4 O.A. No.3201/2015 Tribunal quashed the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the applicant with liberty to the respondents to resume the inquiry as per the relevant Rules.
5. In compliance of the said order, the applicant was reinstated and fresh inquiry was initiated against him. Fresh inquiry report also substantiated charges and vide Order dated 06.10.2009, penalty of dismissal was imposed by the disciplinary authority. His appeal against the dismissal order was also rejected by the Appellate Authority. Being dissatisfied with the appellate order, the applicant filed revision petition before the competent authority, amongst the respondents, on 24.12.2012, which remained pending. Therefore, the applicant again approached the Tribunal vide OA No.562/2014, which was disposed of by the Tribunal on 14.02.2014 with direction to the respondents to dispose of the review petition within one month. In compliance of the same, the revision petition was considered, but the same was rejected on the ground of limitation.
6. The Applicant again approached the Tribunal and as per directions of the Tribunal in OA No.1722/2014 final order was passed by the Revisionary Authority on 5 O.A. No.3201/2015 26.08.2014, upholding his dismissal and hence this OA has been filed.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant argues that the charges are vague and not sustainable. Rule 132 of Postal Manual Vol.VI Part-III under which he has been penalized, in fact, not been violated in this case and as such its invocation is erroneous.
8. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been exonerated of all criminal charges by the CBI Court. In support, the relevant order of the CBI Court has also been produced before us, which reads as under:
"Accused Rajkumar Sharma is hereby acquitted from charges under section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, section 120B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused Sudhir, Pradhuman Kumar Jain and Vimmi are hereby acquitted from charges levelled against them under section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, section 120 r/w 420/467, 468, 471 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13 (1)
(d) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 r/w 120 IPC."
9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel also argues that in view of the acquittal of the applicant from the criminal case, such a serious penalty of dismissal is not warranted. In support of his claim, he cites an order 6 O.A. No.3201/2015 passed by this Tribunal dated 27.08.2008 in OA No.2210/2006 in G.P. Sewalia vs. Union of India & Others. Alluding to the principle that the quantum of penalty should be commensurate with the gravity of the charge and right to impose the penalty carried with it the duty to act justly and every misconduct, irrespective of its gravity cannot be taken to justify the imposition of the maximum penalty, learned counsel submits that the instant case is not that of misconduct and such harsh punishment is thus uncalled for.
10. The respondents in their counter have vehemently opposed the reliefs sought for by the applicant. It is submitted that the charge levelled against the applicant was that he worked at Nehru Road Baraut, Sub Post Office unautorisedly and the inquiry was conducted against this article of charge. During the course of inquiry, it was found that he prepared discharge journal of forged/fake documents, which were paid to the said Sub Post Office. He also endorsed the remark of payment of forged saving certificates. As a consequence, heavy financial loss was caused and even if he is discharged of criminal liability, the fact remains that he worked unauthorisedly, which itself is an act of serious misconduct. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the applicant is fully justified. 7 O.A. No.3201/2015
11. It is also submitted that though the applicant has made several attempts for getting the impugned orders quashed but the competent authorities amongst the respondents, after due consideration have not found any merit in such submission made by the applicant and therefore it does not warrant any intervention by the Tribunal, given its limited role of judicial review.
12. We have perused the pleadings on record and also heard the learned counsels for the applicant and the respondents. It is undisputed that the applicant was working against the post of Postman, Baraut Head Office and his charter of duty was to distribute post in Beat Nos. 5 and 7 of Baraut Head Office, but he worked in Nehru Road, Baraut Post Office, attending to the work of Sub Post Office, which was not part of his duty as Postman. Though he might have done so as per verbal orders of the Sub Post Master, no written order issued by the competent authority has been placed on record to show that his working there was duly approved and thus was legal. Therefore, his working as Sub Post Office is without any justification. While the plea taken by the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been discharged of criminal liability upon his acquittal by the CBI Court we cannot lose sight of 8 O.A. No.3201/2015 the fact that the central point for our consideration is the article of charge which is unauthorisedly working at a place which was not assigned to him.
13. We have carefully gone through the article of charge and we find that it does not mention anything about his involvement or otherwise in the criminal case. The article of charge clearly states that the applicant while working on the post of Postman had unauthorisedly carried on work of Sub Post Master in Sub Post Office, Nehru Road, Baraut and in this manner had worked unlike a Government employee, violating relevant Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. In view of this, too much cannot be made of his discharge from his acquittal by the CBI Court. Moreover, as we are aware standard of proof in a criminal case is different from the disciplinary proceedings, while the standard of proof in a criminal case is a proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a disciplinary proceeding is preponderance of probability.
14. On the other hand, the fact remains that the applicant worked at a place which was not his assigned place and carried out activities, which were not part of his duty. This charge against him has been proved by the competent authority. Also we cannot gloss over the fact 9 O.A. No.3201/2015 that the Department had to face serious financial loss during discharge of such unauthorized work by the applicant.
15. We have also considered the challenge to the applicability of Rule 132 of Postal Manual Vol.VI Part-III advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. The said rule reads as under:
"132. Penalties for neglect of duty-
A postman found guilty of habitually loitering on his beat, or employing the agency of unauthorized person, or persons unconnected with the Post Office to deliver articles entrusted to him for delivery, or otherwise neglecting his duty is liable to removal or prosecution in a Court of Law under the Post Office Act."
It is clear that the rule also covers neglecting once duty and it is apparent that by working unauthorizedly and not attending to his work, the applicant has also neglected his duty. Therefore, we do not find anything wrong in application of Rule 132 of Postal Manual Vol.VI Part-III in the instant case.
16. We are conscious of well settled position with regard to judicial review which entails that Courts/Tribunals should not venture into the penalty imposed by the competent authority unless there is a travesty of justice in 10 O.A. No.3201/2015 terms of the inquiry not being held by a competent authority; there is violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous consideration and findings of facts are not based on facts. We do not find anything to suggest that these parameters have been contravened herein.
17. In view of the facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned memos. The OA is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /kdr/