Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
P V L Narasimharao vs Rural Development on 24 April, 2024
OA/1025/2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA/021/1025/2011
HYDERABAD, this the 24th day of April, 2024
Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member
P.V.L. Narasimha Rao,
S/o-Late Shri P.A. Raju, aged about 51 years
Former LDC/Typist,
National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad- 500 030.
..... Applicant.
(By Advocate: Mr. A Rajendra Babu)
Vs.
1. The Chairman, Executive Council,
National Institute of Rural Development and
Union Minister for Rural Development,
Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Director General,
National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030.
3. The Registrar,
National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030.
4. The Assistant Registrar (Estt.),
National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030.
5. The Asst. Financial Advisor & P.A.O.,
National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. K Rajitha, Sr. PC for CG)
-----
Page 1 of 18
OA/1025/2011
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member) By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief(s):
"This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to set aside the Office memorandum dt. 14.12.2009 issued by the Disc. authority/D.G., NIRD imposing the major penalty of removal from service imposed on the applicant and also the Office memorandum dt. 27.9.2010 issued by the Asst. Registrar of NIRD stating that the Executive Council found that the contentions raised by the appellant do not merit consideration and accordingly rejected the appeal submitted by Shri P.V.L. Narasimharao, former LDC-Typist, NIRD."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as LDC/Typist in 1985 and rendered services to the utmost satisfaction of the superior officers and maintained cordial relations with colleagues in the various sections of NIRD, wherever he worked from time to time. The applicant was also granted higher scale of Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f 22.02.1995 as per the Office Order dated 10.04.1996 under the provisions of the Career Advancement Scheme in operation in NIRD, after due consideration and scrutiny of applicant's service record and recommendation by the Departmental Promotion Committee and with the approval of appointing authority i.e. Director-General, NIRD. While the applicant was working as LDC-Typist in the Accounts Section, D.G., NIRD issued to the applicant a charge memorandum dt.28.1.2004 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules listing out the four articles of charge, along with the list of documents as well as list of witnesses that were annexed to the charge memorandum. As directed, the applicant submitted his written statement of defence vide letter dt. 06.02.2004 to the D.G./disciplinary authority and Page 2 of 18 OA/1025/2011 denied all the allegations in toto and inter-alia also requested for dropping all the further proceedings. Simultaneously, an FIR was registered for offences under Sections 420, 468, 409, 471, 120(B) R/W 34 IPC against the applicant among 7 others and Criminal proceedings commenced after the charge sheet was filed in the matter. The Court has vide judgement dated 31.08.209 in CC No.2437/2005 acquitted the applicant for the offences under Section 406 IPC, however, convicted him under Section 120(B) of IPC. The applicant had challenged the same before the Hon'ble High court and finally in the Criminal Revision Case No.674/2014, the orders of the Trial Court as well as the appellate court have been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court vide judgement dated 12.04.2022 and the applicant has been acquitted against the section 120(B) of IPC. Pending the criminal case, the department had initiated a departmental inquiry and accordingly, IO has been appointed. Thorough inquiry has been conducted, calling the listed witnesses. The Inquiry Officer has submitted his first Inquiry Report, however, the Disciplinary Authority has not agreed with the same. Hence, the Disciplinary Authority ordered further inquiry under Rule 15(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Even after conducting the further inquiry under Rule 15(1) of the said Rules, the IO has negated all the articles and submitted his report. Since the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the said inquiry report, further inquiry with the same IO has been ordered and even this time, the IO has negated all the charges framed against the applicant under the said articles. The DA has not agreed and issued a disagreement note, to which the applicant has submitted his detailed representation. The DA did not even agree to this and finally imposed the Page 3 of 18 OA/1025/2011 penalty of dismissal from service on the applicant, against which the applicant has filed an appeal in detail. The Appellate Authority, without dealing with the objections raised in the appeal against the Disciplinary Authority's order, has passed cryptic order. Being aggrieved, the applicant approached this Tribunal, filed the present O.A. and prayed for the aforesaid relief.
3. After notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsel, filed a detailed reply and opposed the relief on the ground that the Inquiry Officers, though opportunity has been given on various occasions, has failed to appreciate the documentary evidences on record. When the applicant has himself admitted in respect of the said Cheque Book as he himself indulged into destroying the Cheque Book, the Inquiry Officer has not appreciated the said evidence. Hence, there is no other option left with the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 15(1) of the said Rules. Two times the opportunity has been given to the Inquiry Officer to appreciate the evidence as well as permission has been granted to call the necessary witnesses though it is not listed along with the charge memo. Even after receipt of the 3 rd Inquiry Report, since the evidence has not been appreciated properly, the Disciplinary Authority has issued a disagreement note. On receipt of the representation of the applicant of the delinquent employee, and after going through the record, the disciplinary authority has imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. The Appellate authority duly appreciating the evidence, confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that while seeking Page 4 of 18 OA/1025/2011 relief, the applicant has also relied on the observations made by the IO in his Inquiry reports dt.8.7.2004, 24.11.2004 and 15.2.2005 to support his claim. In this regard, it is reiterated that DA has disagreed with the findings of the IO clearly giving a speaking order. Further, IO himself in his concluding remarks at Pg. 19 of the report dt. 8.7.2004 made the following observation at para (c) -
"However, the manner in which the Charged Officer had admitted himself and dealt with sensitive and important matters like "cheque book requisition form", which lead to the whole case, is a mistake on his part, which cannot absolve him from that guilt."
Further in his final clarification submitted by IO to DA vide his 3rd report dt. 15.2.2005 also, IO recorded at para 14 that the "CO having accepted the responsibility of requisitioning the cheque book could have taken extra care.... ....... I found him irresponsible on his part for continuing the practice of signing on the requisition slip and not being careful. Hence, I find CO responsible to the extent of his wrong practice of signing the requisition slip on both the sides for which I found him responsible."
However, IO absolved the CO from the charges stating that it was a failure of the system on part of the Institute as well as Bank. As can also be kindly seen from the daily order sheet signed by the CO, while participating in the inquiry of 19.5.2004, he admitted that he was keeping the cheque books and he also admitted the fact that he signed the requisition slip on both sides which was used for issue of a new cheque book from which cheques were used for fraudulent withdrawal amounting to Rs.13,92,000/-. The CO signed the requisition slip for issue of cheque book when another cheque book with 20 cheques was already available with him. The particular UNDP account was a project account with very few transactions and IO could not Page 5 of 18 OA/1025/2011 offer any plausible defence in support of his claim why he signed the requisition slip for issue of a new cheque book. Continuing in this chain of events, CO has taken a plea that he signed the requisition slip for cheque book on both the sides and he left it on the table and it was misused by somebody else for getting the new cheque book issued after making false signature of the then Accounts Officer who was on leave on that particular day. Presuming for a moment, even if his explanation to be true, the CO has no explanation to offer as to why he did not report this fact to his superiors since cheque book issued against this requisition slip was used for fraudulent withdrawal many months later. Further, as a responsible Govt. servant handling the cheques and cash, why he has signed the requisition slip on the reverse acknowledging the receipt of the cheque book when it should be done after the receipt of the cheque from the bank counter. It is pertinent to mention here that register of the bank from which cheques were issued, this particular entry of the receipt in the register was defaced. The Chief Manager, SBH, Rajendranagar Branch, vide his letter No.F/COMP/15, dt.22.4.2003 informed that the new cheque book was handed over to the applicant Shri PVLN Rao, authorized employee of the respondents' organization against his acknowledgement only. However, later on, the entry in the register of bank was defaced. As may be seen from the daily order sheet of the proceedings held on 27.5.2004, the CO has stated that he used to always sign the register maintained by the bank while taking the cheque book, but in this particular case, he has not signed in the register, knowing fully well that the particular entry/ signature in the bank register was defaced with the other co-accused with Page 6 of 18 OA/1025/2011 whom he connived including bank staff, who was later on dismissed by the Bank for his connivance in this particular case. The core and the main issue remains that fraudulent withdrawal took place due to requisition slip dated 16.01.2002 signed on both sides by CO Shri PVL Narasimha Rao when there was no need to have a cheque book, Accounts Officer was on leave on that day and his counter signature was found fake, in case he signed and forgot to keep the requisition slip safely and it was lost, he never reported this fact to his superiors despite the fact that actual withdrawal took place many months later. All this relevant factors were not taken into consideration by the IO while giving his findings. Even presuming for a moment that it resulted due to failure of the system on part of the bank and the Institute, it gives no immunity to the charged officer to commit a fraud and withdraw the money from the office account after conniving with the co-accused. Even in the present application filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal, the applicant has failed to bring any new facts to establish that he was not guilty for the fraudulent withdrawal effected in the present case with his connivance and for the loss of Rs.13,92,000/- to the Institute. As such, the applicant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the O.A. Hence, the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the O.A.
5. Refuting the stand taken by the respondents in their reply, the applicant has filed the rejoinder, reiterating the submissions made in the O.A.
6. Heard both sides and perused the records.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant strongly argued on the point that when three times the inquiry has been conducted, the IO has negated all the articles and Page 7 of 18 OA/1025/2011 submitted his report by re-appreciating the evidences again and again. Moreover, when the inquiry has been ordered under Rule 15(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, a fresh charge memo has to be issued to the applicant. Even though the applicant has co- operated with the second and third inquiry, known as further conducted inquiries, the disciplinary authority has disagreed with the said inquiry reports. Without appreciating the observations of the Inquiry Officer, when the Inquiry Officer in his report categorically mentioned that it is a system failure, however, the disciplinary authority has not agreed to the said report and he has drawn his own inference over the evidence which is beyond his purview.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant further argued on the point that the applicant's appeal in detail has not been considered by the appellate authority wherein various points have been raised. When a disagreement note has to be issued, it has to be issued within a period of three months as prescribed under the Rule 15(9) of CCS (CCA) rules. When categorically the applicant has raised his points in his appeal, the appellate authority has not even looked into the said averments as well as the grievances in the appeal. Though the applicant has submitted that when in the third inquiry, the IO has examined all other officials of NIRD, including the Manager of the NIRD extension counter SBH, still the disciplinary authority in its disagreement note, has written that the name has not been examined. Though almost the said six witnesses are not listed in the witness list along with the charge memo, thereby the Disciplinary authority has not even bound to the inquiry report and has passed the order and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service against the Page 8 of 18 OA/1025/2011 applicant being ignorant of the material on record.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicants working as LDC, which is the lowest rank in the accounts section and for the said lapses, as alleged, he cannot alone be proceeded against for a major penalty, leaving the other responsible officers i.e. Accounts Officer (Mr. AV Ramana, Mr. NVJ Krishna Murthy), AFA & PAO (Mr. MN Adityaraman) for the mismanagement of the finances of the institute. Therefore, the disciplinary authority acted with partiality, in biased manner and under undue influence by issuing charge memo dated 28.01.2004 to the applicant.
10. The learned counsel for the applicant further contended that though in the matter of criminal case, finally Hon'ble High Court in Criminal Revision Case has acquitted the applicant with an observation that after perusal of the entire evidence on record, it has been evident that the main conspirators behind the scheme are not arrested for prosecution and for the reasons best known to them. With this observation and lack of evidence, as such there is no concrete evidence on record that the applicant hatched a conspiracy either for obtaining the Cheque Book or for withdrawal of any amount from the account with disputed cheques.
11. In the Criminal Revision Case, it is further observed by the Hon'ble High Court that there is no evidence on record that shows in whose pockets all the disputed four cheques were found. Accordingly, with further observations, the Hon'ble High Court has held that they have failed to appreciate the evidence on record and there was in-ordinate delay of 4-5 months in lodging the FIR. Finally, the applicant has Page 9 of 18 OA/1025/2011 been acquitted by setting aside the orders of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court passed under section 120 (B) of IPC. Hence, the learned counsel for the applicant prayed for the aforesaid relief.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the relief on the ground that while seeking relief, the applicant has also relied on the observations made by the IO in his Inquiry reports dt.8.7.2004, 24.11.2004 and 15.2.2005 to support his claim. In this regard, it is reiterated that DA has disagreed with the findings of the IO clearly giving a speaking order. Further, IO himself in his concluding remarks at Pg. 19 of the report dt. 8.7.2004 observed that the applicant admitted his mistake as to the manner in which he has indeed dealt with sensitive and important matters like "cheque book requisition form", which lead to the whole case. Further, in his final clarification, submitted by IO to DA vide his 3rd report dt. 15.2.2005 also, IO recorded at para 14 that the CO accepted the responsibility of requisitioning the cheque book could have taken extra care and thus the IO found the applicant irresponsible on his part for continuing the practice of signing on the requisition slip and not being careful. Thus, the IO held the CO responsible to the extent of his wrong practice of signing the requisition slip on both the sides. The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that despite the said observations, IO absolved the CO from the charges stating that it was a failure of the system on part of the Institute as well as Bank. Even in the Inquiry held on 19.5.2004, the applicant admitted that he was keeping the cheque books and he also admitted the fact that he signed the requisition slip on both sides which was used for issue of a new cheque Page 10 of 18 OA/1025/2011 book from which cheques were used for fraudulent withdrawal amounting to Rs.13,92,000/-. It is further argued that the CO signed the requisition slip for issue of cheque book when another cheque book with 20 cheques was already available with him. The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions raised in the pleadings, filed on behalf of the respondents and prayed for the dismissal of the O.A.
13. It is to be noted that after perusal of the pleadings on record and after hearing both sides, it is not out of context that though the inquiry has been ordered initially, the IO has submitted his first inquiry report dated 08.07.2004 and Disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the same and hence, with a disagreement note, remanded back the matter for further inquiry under Rule 15(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules.
14. It is to be noted that as per the Bylaw 56, the inquiry will be conducted followed with the CCS (CCA) Rules. When further inquiry was ordered, it was the duty of the disciplinary authority that when they have made certain observations, either they have to issue a fresh charge memo or if at all they are not satisfied with the inquiry report, they have to change the IO. However, without following the same, the disciplinary authority ordered further inquiry with the same IO and again he has conducted the fresh inquiry with same witnesses and submitted another report dated 24.11.2004. The Inquiry Officer, in both of his reports, has clearly mentioned that there is no evidence to prove or establish the said articles against the applicant. The Disciplinary authority by not accepting the same, ordered another inquiry with a direction to call other witnesses. From the disagreement note, we are not able to understand that, even though the witnesses were examined who were not even listed Page 11 of 18 OA/1025/2011 in the witness list annexed to the charge memo, more particularly the Manager of the NIRD extension counter SBH, still repeatedly the disciplinary authority is harping on the issue that the key witness has not been examined. It shows that the Disciplinary authority has ignored the facts which constitute part of the IO's report on the said material.
15. It is also to be noted that Charge Memorandum was issued on 28.01.2004, the IO submitted his first report in July, 2004. Further, followed with the direction of the disciplinary authority, second report has been submitted on 24.11.2004 and again on 15.02.2005. As per the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, the time limit prescribed has to be followed. However, after almost four years, the disciplinary authority on 16.09.2009 has recorded its remarks / orders for a disagreement note and sought for the representation of the applicant, against the same. Thereby, the disciplinary authority has failed to follow the rules and limitations, which have been prescribed either to issue a disagreement note or to pass final order.
16. It is also to be noted that against the disagreement note, the applicant has submitted a detailed appeal and none of the points have been considered by the Appellate authority and Appellate authority's order is very cryptic. More particularly, when the applicant has pointed out that additional witnesses i.e. (Manager of the NIRD Extension Counter, SBH; Shri T. Ramchander, Cashier, NIRD; Shri NVG Krishna Murthy, Accounts Officer, NIRD; Shri Krishnam Raju, Manager, SBH; Shri Yadaiah, Peon, SBH; Shri M.Y. Shariff, the then Manager, SBH) have also been called in the Inquiry and the IO in his report has mentioned that Page 12 of 18 OA/1025/2011 " After taking into consideration the depositions made by the additional witnesses from the SBH., NIRD Extension Counter, during the further inquiry, I am inclined to come to conciusion that there is no clinching clue or supportive evidence was borne out from the further inquiry which entail me to make it necessary to review and change the findings of the inquiry already submitted by the undersigned as Inquiry Officer to the Director General and Disciplinary Authority - at the conclusion of regular inquiry (vide TOT note dated 08/07/2004".
The Director General and Disciplinary Authority again vide Office Order No.804 desired for further inquiry in the case by the Inquiry Officer as per certain points raised in the said Office Order. Accordingly the Inquiry Officer submitted report of the further inquiry vide his report dated 15/02/2005, wherein the Inquiry Officer in the final conclusion stated as follows:
"In the final conclusion, after examining the case, I am of the firm opinion that the fraudulent withdrawal and loss to NIRD which has happened due to system failure involving both the finance section of the institute and the Bank. It is difficult to pin point the responsibility on a single individual, that too, at the lowest rung of accounts section."
The applicant has also raised his objection against the said disagreement note as well as the inquiry that as per Bye Laws of the Institute as also the GFRs, the Accounts Officer is the custodian of cheque books. The Cashier of the Institute attends to cash transactions. As LDC/TYPIST, the applicant is not responsible for cash transactions and custody of cheque books. In the Accounts Section, there is an official hierarchy with assigned functions and powers, i.e., Accounts Officers Sri A.V. Ramana and Sri NVG Krishna Murthy), AFA & PAO (Sri M.N. Adityaraman) and Director FM & FA (Smt. V.Veda Kumari) who are responsible for financial transactions, accounting and Page 13 of 18 OA/1025/2011 prompt and punctual bank reconciliation of cash/cheque transactions which facilitate detection of any unauthorized and fraudulent transactions for corrective steps promptly. It is an admitted fact that the Accounts Officers concerned/AFA & PAO failed in their responsibilities for prompt reconciliation. For this lapse on their part, the applicant being an LDC/TYPIST, at the lowest rung in the Accounts Section alone cannot be proceeded for a major penalty, leaving the other responsible officers. The Disciplinary Authority appears to have acted with partiality and bias by issuing charge memorandum dated 28/01/2004 and imposing the penalty of dismissal to the total exclusion of the officers concerned.
17. However, the appellate authority, vide its office memorandum dated 27.09.2010 has stated that:
"An appeal dated 12-01-2010 was submitted by Shri P.V.L. Narasimha Rao, former LDC/Typist, NIRD, against the Office Memorandum No.Admn. VC-1/2003/194, dated 14-12-2009 imposing the penalty of dismissal from the services of the Institute.
The appeal was considered by the Executive Council of the Institute in its meeting held on 12-08-2010. The Executive Council found that the contentions raised by appellant did not merit consideration and accordingly rejected the appeal submitted by Shri P.V.L. Narasimha Rao, former LDC/Typist, NIRD"
18. It seems that the authorities have not acted in accordance with the law by not examining the records in the evidentiary value. It is also to be noted that as observed by the High Court in the Criminal Revision that:
" Learned Counsel appearing for A-2 would submit that there is no incriminating evidence against A-2 in the charge sheet nor is any specific instances alleged and proved in support of the Page 14 of 18 OA/1025/2011 allegation under Section 120B of I.P.C. and even none of the prosecution witnesses deposed as against A-2 and as such he is entitled for acquittal. It is further submitted that the departmental enquiry for the similar charges against A-2 resulted in exoneration of A-2 from the charges and thereby the Courts below ought to have acquitted A-2; that both the Courts below ought to have appreciated that A-2 was made a scapegoat in the case linking the allegations to him which are not established even from the remote evidence. It is further submitted that Ex.P28 standard writings of A-2 is not compared with any other document; that the conviction on surmises and conjectures is bad, illegal and absurd against all canons of criminal jurisprudence and that the conviction as arrived at by the Courts below is not based on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 which is contradictory to each other and as such the same is liable to be set aside.
Further, P.W.13, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Rajendranagar Police Station, has categorically stated in his cross examination that there was no signature of A-2 on the requisition register for getting the cheque book. He admitted that he did not send Ex.P28- Standard writings of A-2 for comparison. He also admitted that A- 2 was working as L.D.C-cum-Typist in NIRD Accounts Department and there was no office order to show that A-2 was the custodian of the requisition slips. He further admitted that no reasons have been assigned in the complaint for the delay in lodging the complaint on 24.04.2003.
A perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is evident that A-1 and A-4, who are the main conspirators behind the scheme, are not yet arrested by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. Charges under Sections 120B and 406 of I.P.C. were framed against the revision petitioners/A-2 and A-3 as well as A-5 to A-8. The trial Court acquitted A-5 to A-8 for both the offences and the revision petitioners/ A-2 and A-3 for the offence under Section 406 of I.P.C. as there was no evidence against them and that the said finding was confirmed by the appellate Court. However, both the Courts below found the revision petitioners/ A-Page 15 of 18
OA/1025/2011 2 and A-3 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 120B I.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 has opened an S.B. account and R.D. account in S.B.H., NIRD Extension Counter, Rajendranagar, without his photograph, with the active connivance of the revision petitioners/ A-2 and A-3, who were working as Junior Assistant and Attender respectively in the said bank. The allegation against A-3 is that he has introduced A-1 for opening the bank account. The prosecution has failed to establish that introducing a customer to open the bank account attracts penal provision as per the service conditions of the bank. Hence, the Courts below cannot come to a conclusion that since A-3 has introduced A-1 for opening the bank account and his signatures were appeared on Exs.P12 and P18-Cheques along with A-1, he hatched a conspiracy with A-1 for withdrawal of an amount of Rs.13.92 lakhs, as alleged by the prosecution.
In other words, there is no concrete evidence on record that with whom A-2 and A-3 hatched a conspiracy either for obtaining the cheque book or for withdrawal of any amount from the account of A-1 through the disputed four cheques. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that in whose custody all the four cheques were found. The Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record that there was an inordinate delay of four to five months in lodging the F.I.R. It is the case of the prosecution witnesses that they have not verified any reconciliation statements immediately after the monitory transactions, which was mandatory as per the Rules. However, basing on the explanation given by A-3 and the unstable evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, the Courts below came to the conclusion that the incriminating material available on record establishes the offence under Section 120B of I.P.C. against A-2 and A-3 and accordingly convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 120B of I.P.C. Further, a perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is evident that there were serious lapses in opening of the bank account of A-1, passing of cheques of high value and safe custody of cheque book etc., Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence against the revision petitioners/ A-Page 16 of 18
OA/1025/2011 2 and A-3 and the findings recorded by the trial Court, which were upheld by the appellate Court, are erroneous, perverse and illegal and as such they are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed. The conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court as affirmed by the appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 120B of I.P.C. are hereby set aside and the revision petitioners/ A-2 and A-3 are acquitted of the said offence. Fine amount, if any, paid by the revision petitioners/ A-2 and A-3 shall be refunded to them. The bail bonds of the revision petitioners/ A-2 and A-3 shall stand cancelled.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed."
19. As recorded above, we are of the opinion that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority failed to appreciate the records and have not followed the rules and law which are binding on the authorities on the matters of disciplinary cases. Moreover, there is no concrete evidence even in the disciplinary case as well as in the criminal revision as observed by the High Court. The main offenders or the persons behind the said scam have not been inquired, rather by initiating the common inquiry, they have been called in the witness box in support of the department case. When the allegation has been made by the department, in respect of these witnesses, their testimony cannot be accepted, even though the IO has negated the said charges as the said articles are not proved. In view of the same, the orders passed by the disciplinary as well as appellate authority do not sustain in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed and set aside. Due to the pendency of the O.A., the applicant came to be retired on superannuation 30.06.2020. Hence, the respondents Page 17 of 18 OA/1025/2011 are directed to pass orders of reinstatement of the applicant notionally as well as to grant all other consequential benefits. However, as the applicant has not worked with the organization. The principle of "No Work No Pay" is to be followed in respect of back wages. However, the applicant is otherwise eligible and entitled for his pensionary benefits and the same have to be released within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which 6% interest will be carried forward on the said amount.
20. Accordingly, in terms of above, the O.A. is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SHALINI MISRA) (DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/KR/
Page 18 of 18