Chandrakanta Pradhan vs D/O Post on 29 October, 2021

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack

Chandrakanta Pradhan vs D/O Post on 29 October, 2021

O.A. No. 424/2014 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH No. OA 424 of 2014 Present: Hon'ble Mr.Swarup Kumar Mishra, Judicial Member Hon'ble Mr. T.Jacob, Administrative Member Sri Chnadrakanta Pradhan, aged about 35 years, S/o Jatindra Pradhan, Ex-GDS BPM, At/PO - Nimpal, Via Mitrapur, Dist Balasore.

......Applicant VERSUS

1. Union of India, represented through its Director General of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.

2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, At/PO-Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda-751001.

3. Director of Postal Services, O/o Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, At/PO-bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda-751001.

4. Superintendent of Post Offices, Balasore Divison. At/PO/Dist - Balasore, 756001 ......Respondents.

For the applicant :       Mr. D. P. Dhalsamant, counsel

For the respondents:      Mr. B. P. Nayak Counsel

Heard & reserved on : 7.10.2021 Order on : 29.10.2021

                                   O   R   D   E   R

Per Mr.Swarup Kumar Mishra, J.M.

The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals' Act, 1985 challenging the order of removal from service in a departmental proceeding under Rule 10 of the GDS (C&E) Rule seeking the following reliefs :

O.A. No. 424/2014 2

i) That order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the disciplinary authority under Annexure A/4, order dated 17.01.2013 of appellate authority under Annexure A/6 and order dated 28.01.2014 of revisional authority under Annexure A/8 be quashed.

ii) That direction be issued to the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service with all consequential benefits.

iii) Further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper to give complete relief to the applicant.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the applicant while working as GDS BPM was placed under off duty in contemplation of departmental proceeding by Respondent No. 4 vide memo dated 04.02.2009. The applicant was charge sheeted under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules 2011 vide memo dated 01.12.2009. Thereafter after the inquiry the inquiry officer submitted its report, a copy of which was supplied to the applicant vide memo dated 23.08.2012, in which all the charges against the applicant were proved except for charge no. V which was partially proved. The applicant submitted his defence representation dated 28.08.2012 to the disciplinary authority.

Disciplinary Authority vide memo dated 28.09.2012 agreed with the findings of the IO and imposed punishment of removal from service of the applicant with immediate effect and ordered treating the put off period as non duty for all purpose. The applicant submitted appeal to Respondent No. 3 on 02.11.2012 which was rejected vide letter dated 17.01.2013. The applicant approached the revisional authority i.e. Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 23.04.2013 which was rejected by Revisional Authority vide letter dated 28.01.2014.

Hence the OA.

3. The grounds taken by the applicant in the OA for legal relief is as follows:

O.A. No. 424/2014 3

a) That the removal order dated 28.09.2012 (A/4) as well as the Appellate Authority order dated 17.01.2013 (A/6) and order dated 28.01.2014 (A/8) rejecting the revision petition are bad in law.

b) That the applicant was charge sheeted for VI article of charges out of which the IO proved 5 article of charges except article no. v which was partially proved without proper evidence, hence the report of the IO cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

c) That the applicant was charge sheeted under Article I on the allegation that while he was working as GDS BPM Nimpal BO. On 28.12.2005, the delinquent official did not make over Nimpal BO MO No. 1952 dated 17.12.2005 for Rs. 30/- to the remitted Sri Gayadhar Nayak to the GDS MD nor he paid him self the amount to the remitter but showed paid and accounted for the amount for the said MO to the BO account introducing the MO paid voucher with bogus signature of the remitter.

In this pretext the delinquent official specifically stated in his defence that the MO voucher was handed over to GDS MD and GDS MD paid the MO amount to the remitted and put his signature in the MO voucher.

The delinquent official submitted to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed against the GDS MD who showed to have been paid to the remitted in the MO Voucher. But the disciplinary authority without sending the signature of the GDS MD on the MO voucher for handwriting expert framed charge against the applicant for bogus signature of the remitter.

O.A. No. 424/2014 4

Hence the charge no. 1 against the delinquent official cannot be said to have been proved.

d) That so far as the article no. II is concerned the applicant has not violated any rules and so far as charge no. III is concerned through the IO proved the charge against the applicant but it cannot be said to be proved because the Registry letter issued by the Superintendent of post office, Balasore Division in its memo no. F/Misc-15/05-06 dated 4.2.2009 cannot be posted through Register Post on 3.2.2009 (i.e. day before memo was issued) hence the charges against the applicant are not proved.

e) That as per charge no. IV is concerned, the applicant did not receive the SPO memo dated 4.2.2009 from overseer mail Rajnilagiri Sub Division on 06.2.2009 and 7.2.2009. The memo dated 4.2.2009 was not listed documents under Annexure III to the charge sheet dated 1.12.2009 nor the said document had been produced/exhibited during course of inquiry. Therefore the article no. IV cannto be proved without the memo dated 4.2.2009 issued by the Superintendent of Post office.

f) That the IO in its report stated that the article of charge no. v he is not inclined to hold this part of charge proved but in the finding portion the IO has mentioned the charge is partly proved.

It is relevant to mention here that the charge against the applicant has either to be proved or not to be proved but cannot be said partially proved.

O.A. No. 424/2014 5

g) That so far as article no. VI is concerned the applicant has not misappropriated either temporarily or permanently but the amount in question was kept inside the office draw which was brought to the notice of the authority.

h) That the punishment of removal of service imposed on applicant is too harsh and not commensurate to the offence. Therefore the punishment order of removal of service is highly excess for which the same is liable to be set aside.

i) That neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority/revisional authority have dealt the points raised by the applicant, therefore the order of removal cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

4. The respondent in their counter inter alia averred that the applicant was proceeded under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rule 2001 with six article of charges. Out of six charges, IO has proved five article of charges beyond reasonable doubt and one as partially proved. The said article of charges has also been proved by the authorities of the department at the time of passing final orders at their end. The respondent submitted that as per Ext S 11 (Annexure R/1) at question No 3 the applicant ahd admitted that he had kept shortage of office cash Rs. 248 and the said amount has been kept for his personal use. It is also clearly evident from Ext S 10 (Annexure R/2) that the inventory of cash and stamps of Nimpal BO in account with Mitrapur SO has been prepared in presence of the applicant in which he has also put his O.A. No. 424/2014 6 signature for authentication of the shortage of cash Rs. 248/-. The reviewing authority while deciding the case of the applicant has taken all these things into consideration and agreed with the report of the IO and upheld the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. The respondent further submitted that the plea taken by the applicant in his defence statement that the MO of Rs. 30 has been handed over to the GDSMD and the GDS MD has paid the amount to the remitted by putting his signature on the money order paid voucher is clearly an after thought and without any documentary evidence. As per documentary evidence (office journal dated 27.12.2005, 28.12.2005 and the copy of account book for the month of December 2005 Annexure R/3 & R/4) the said MO has been received at Nimpal BO on 27.12.2005 duly entered in the BO journal but the same has not been received by the GDSMD. The respondent submitted that the GEQD, Calcutta has clearly opined vide Annexure R/5 series that the signature and writings appeared on the MO paid voucher doe not match with the writing and signature of the original remitter Sri Gayadhar Nayak, hence the question of taking disciplinary action against the GDSMD does not arise. The respondents further submitted that as per documentary evidence the applicant had not maintained the BO account book of Nimpal BO from 01.03.2009 to 22.03.2009 which was also deposed by S/W 11 in his deposition and also by statement of the applicant where he mentioned that he used to write the account book at end of each month for the entire month. The respondents submitted that sufficient reasonable opportunity was given to applicant to prove his innocence O.A. No. 424/2014 7 but he had failed to do so. The respondents submitted that the applicant was awarded punishment for act of his omission & commission and not on silly matters and that there is no provision in the rules to award a punishment depending upon the amount involved in the case. The disciplinary authority, appellate authority and reviewing authority have considered the offence committed by the applicant meticulously while disposing of his appeals.

5. Heard learned counsels for both sides and have carefully gone through the materials on records.

6. The defence statement of the applicant dated 29.08.2012 after receipt of IO is extracted below:

"Most respectfully, I beg to lay before you the following few lines for favour of your kind consideration and favourbale decision.

The defendant in this case was charge sheeted in six charges only of violation of BO Rules - 106, 133, 86, 177 and GDS (Conduct & employment ) Rules - 2001.

In the article no.1, Nimpal BO MO No 15 dated 16.12.05 for Rs. 30/- reissued at Mitrapur SO vide MO No. 1952 dated 17.12.05 for Rs. 30/- received back for payment to the remitter Sri Gayadhar Nayak.

The defendant in this case actually did not commit the violation of Rules as charged. The MO in question received back on 27.12.05 for effecting payment to the remitter Sri Gaydhar Nayak. As per rule the BPM Sri Chandrakanta Pradhan has made over MO to the GDSMD of his office for payment to the remitter noting on BO journal on 27.12.05 (Ext. S-13 (a)) and the same MO has been received by the GDSMD on that day. GDSMD has noted the MO in his postman book of Nimpal BO (Ext S-12) on 27.12.05 and the payment the MO in question to the remitter. The matter has been come to light during the course of proceeding and at the time of exhibiting the records on 15.11.2011 that the MO in question has been noted in the BO journal and postman book of Nimpal BO and the same has been exhibited as EXT S-12(b) and Ext S-13(a). The inquiry authority Sri Gopabandhu Sahu, the EX-SDI(P) of Raj Nilgiri Sub O.A. No. 424/2014 8 division has felt to reflect it during the course of inquiry, for which the GDS DA has not been charge sheeted. That, fact has admitted by Sri Gopabandhu Sahu (SW 10) on cross examination. In this charge the GDS DA is main offencer, but has not been charge sheeted. The defendant has been charge sheeted wrongly instead of GDS DA.

Secondly, the remitter of the MO Sri Gayadhar Nayak is 85 years old man, who has lost his memory. He has booked the MO on 17.12.05 and could not say when he submitted complaint, but admitted that he had received the amount of MO within one month, the date of booking of MO and before preferring the complaint. He has also admitted that the complaint has not submitted by him to the higher authority of department of posts, it was collected by the over seer mail of Raj Niligiri Sub Division accompanied by Inspector of Posts Raj Niligiri on 28.12.06 intentionally after one year of the booking of MO and receipt of value of the MO.

In this deposition on 15.11.2011 Sri Gayadhar Nayak (SW-1) during the course of cross examination had admitted that the complaint dtd. 28.12.06 has not been written by him and it has been written by another person whose name he cannot say and his written statement has been collected by the SDI (P) Raj Niligiri from him on 26.12.2006 the date of collected the complaint.

From the above facts it is seen that the charge has been framed against the defendant falsely, he actually not committed violation of any rules.

As per charge no. II the appellant while working as GDS BPM, Nimpal BO failed to maintain BO account book of Nimpal BO from 1.3.09 to 22.3.09. In this charge the defendant has actually not committed violation of any rule. He had not written the BO account regularly due to pressure of work. Though it is a day to day work the defendant to write the BO account at the end of the every month.

As per charge of article no. III the appellant has actually not committed grave misconduct as per provision of Rule 86 of BO rules. Supdt of Post Offices, Balasore Division RL No. 2070 dtd. 3.2.09 was addressed to BPM Bimpal BO by designation not in the name of Sri Chandrakanta Pradhan the EX BPM (EXT S 15). On the top of the wrapper (Ext S-15) of the Regd letter No. 2070 dtd 3.2.09, it is seen that the content of the Regd letter was Supdt of Post Offices, Balasore Division Memo No. F/Misc./15/05-06 dtd. 4.2.09.

The Memo No has written by the booking assistant Sri Dolagobinda Behera (SW 5) clearly on the top of the Regd Cover (Ext S-15). It is astonished that the memo issued on 4.2.09, how it has been sent to the defendant by Regd Post dtd. 3.2.09. This fact O.A. No. 424/2014 9 has admitted by Sri S. Pede, ASPOs (OD) (SW 12) at the time of cross examination. So this charge is false, imaginary and baseless.

As per charge no. IV of Article IV, Supdt of Post Offices, Balasore Division Memo No. F/Misc-15/05-06 dtd. 4.2.09 has not been exhibited by the PO during the course of proceeding as a list of document as charge framed against the defendant.

As per charge of article V of the charge sheet is concerned the PS id not commit the violation of rules as charged. The SPS has produced the BO records i.e. BO account book and BO journal to Sri S. Peda ASPOS (OD) and Sri B K Singh, IPO Raj Niligir for checking. If the SPS has not produced the BO records how did Sri Singh and Sri Peda came to know that the SPS failed to maintain BO account Book of Nimpal BO from 1.3.09 to 22.3.09 as per Article II of charge sheet and how did said Sri Singh and said Sri Peda calculate the SPS has kept shortage of Rs. 248 (Rupees two hundred forty eight) only a per charge of article VI of charge sheet.

The SPS has not run away with BO records. This fact has admitted the state witness Sri Suraj Pradhan (SW 7) during cross examination. The other state witness version is also differ in this matter.

As per charge of article VI of charge sheet, the SPS did not commit violation of any rules meant for BO. Firstly on 25.3.09 Sri B K Singh IPO Raj Nilgiri, Sri S. Pede ASPOS (OD) Balasore Division, Sri Pravakar Mallik, O/S Mails and Shri Dharanidhar Shial, O/S Mails Raj Nilgiri sub division visited Nimpal BO on 25.3.09 in connection with put off duty case of Sri Chandrakanta Pradhan, the SPS. After arrived the ASPOS (OD) and the SDI (P) Raj Nilgiri while verifying the cash and stamp balance of the BO the said Sri Pradhan picked up BO records i.e. BO Account Book and BO journal and run away from the office as per charge of article no. V of charge sheet. Hence how did they calculate that a sum of Rs. 248/- has kept shortage by the BPM.

Secondly Nimpal BO was functioning at a small room of the verandah of the residence of the BPM. Sri B. K Singh (SW 11) and Sri S. Peda (SW 12) have calculated the cash and stamp of the BO outside the room due to insufficient light in the room where the bO was functioning taking the cash and stamp form BO Box. But they have not taken into the account the cash remain in the drawer of the table. Haphazardly they calculated the cash and stamp and came to conclusion that a sum of Rupees Two Hundred forty eight (Rs. 248/-) was remain short which is not proper. This charge is baseless, false and imaginary.

O.A. No. 424/2014 10

Summary the above in the article of charges, the SPS being a poor and innocent man of remote rural area was not conversant with the rules in their rigid structure, he has made over Mitrapur SO MO No. 1952 dtd. 17.12.05 to GDS MD of his office for payment to the remitter duly entered in BO journal on 27.12.05. Out of fear and inducment by the investigating inspector the appellant has credited the amount of Rs. 248/- in UCR towards shortage of cash and stamp which is remain in the drawer of the table of the BO.

The inquiry report of the IO cum SDI (P) Raj Nilgiri sub division submitted to SPOs, Balasore division vide his letter No. IO/IP/Rlg/Nimpal BO dtd 31.7.2012 of the aforesaid case. In the report the IO has proved the charges falsely, which are baseless, arbitrary, imaginary and bult a castle without making any foundation. I denied the same in toto.

Under the above circumstances, the defendant prays to be exonerated from the charges into, since he has not committed any mistake."

7. The order of the disciplinary authority dated 28.09.2012 is extracted below:

"Sri Chandrakanta Pradhan, GDSBPM Nimpal BO (under put off duty) here in after referred to as charged official, CO in short in account with Mitrapur SO under Balasore HO was proceeded against under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules 2001 vide this office memo No. F/Misc-15/Disc dated 01.12.09. The Annexure - I to IV containing article of charges, statement of imputation of charges, list of documents by which and list of witnesses by whom the article of charges proposed to be sustained were annexed to the said memo. The said memo along with annexure I to IV was sent to CO under Regd/AD Post where in the CO was inter alia asked to submit his written statement of defence if any within 10 days of receipt of the memo. The CO submitted his representation dated 04.12.2009 refuting all article of charges in toot. As such it was ordered to hold oral enquiry against the CO. Sri B. K. Behera the then ASP I/C Balasore Sub Division was appointed as Inquiring Authority (IO in short) to enquire in to the charges framed against the CO and Shri B. K. Mohanty the then IP Soro Sub Division Soro was appointed as Presenting Officer (PO in short) to present the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. Sri K. Behera IO cum ASP I/C Balasore was transferred to officiate as SPOs Fulabni Division. Therefore Sri S. K. Nayak, the then IP Jaleswar west Jaleswar was appointed as IO in place of Shri O.A. No. 424/2014 11 Behera vide memo dated 24.08.2010. As Sri B. K. Mohanty PO cum IP Soro was appointed to act as PO in other cases, Sri S. Chatterjee IP Jaleswar East Sub Division Jaleswar was appointed in place of Sri Mohanty vide memo dated 24.08.2010. The IP on completion of the inquiry submitted his report dtd. 31.07.2012, which was received by this office on 14.08.12. A copy of the said inquiry report dtd. 31.07.12 was sent to the CO vide this office letter No. F/Misc-15/05-06/Disc dtd 23.08.12 under Regd/AD Post with direction to submit his representation if any on the findings of the IO within a fortnight from the date of receipt of the said letter. On receipt of the letter dated 23.08.2012, the CO submitted written representation dated 29.08.12 which was received at this office on 30.08.12.

2. The charges framed against the CO are as under:

Article I: Sri Chandrakanta Pradhan while working as GDSBPM Nimpal Bo in account with Mitrapur SO under Balasore Ho during the period from 01.09.01 to 25.03.09, on 28.12.05 the said Sri Pradhan did not make over Nimpal Bo MO No. 15 dtd. 16.12.05 for Rs. 30/- reissued at Mitrapur SO vide MO No. 1952 dtd. 17.12.05 forRs. 30/-

received back for payment to the remitter Sri Gayadhar Nayak to the GDSD of his office nor did he, himself pay the amount of the said MO to the remitter. But the said Sri Pradhan showed the said MO as paid and accounted for the amount of the said MO to the BO account of Nimpal BO introducing the MO paid voucher with bogus signature of the remitter Sri Gayadhar Nayak on 28.12.05 and thereby the said Sri Pradhan violated the provisions of Rule 106 of Rules for Bos 6 th edition 2nd reprint.

Article II: The aforesaid Sri Chandrakanta Pradhan while working as such, failed to maintain BO account Book of Nimpal BO from 01.03.09 to 22.03.09 and thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 84 of Postal Manual Vol VI part III and Rule 133 of Rules for Bos 6th edition 2nd reprint.

Article III : The aforesaid Sri Chandrakanta Pradhan while working as such during the period from 01.09.01 to 25.03.09 received SPOs Balasore RL No. 2070 dtd. 03.02.09 addressed to himself on 07.02.09 but the said Sri Pradhan did not take delivery of the said RL though he (Sri Pradhan) was present on duty on 07.02.09. Instead the said Sri Pradhan returned the RL No. 2070 dtd. 03.02.09 with remarks "refused" to the SPOs Balasore on the very date on 07.02.09 and thereby the said Sri Pradhan committed grave misconduct as per provisions of Rule 86 of rules for Bos 6th edition 2nd reprint.

Article IV: The aforesaid Sri Chandrakanta Pradhan while working as such did not receive SPOs Balasore Memo No. F/Misc-15*05-06 dtd. 04.02.09 meant for him (Sri Pradhan) from Sri Pravakar Mallik and Sri Dharnaidhar Shial both overseer of mails of O.A. No. 424/2014 12 Rajnilgiri Sub Division on 06.02.09 and thereby the said Sri Pradhan exhibited grave misconduct as a GDSBPM.

Article VI: The aforesaid Sri Chandrakanta Pradhan while working as such during the period from 01.09.01 to 25.03.09 kept shortage of Rs. 248/- (Rs. Two hundred forty eight) only in cash and stamp balance of Nimpal BO as per BO closing balance dtd. 24.03.09 and thereby violated the provisions of Rule 177 of rules for Bos 6 th edition 2nd reprint.

By his above acts, the said Sri Pradhan failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of him under Rule 21 of GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules 2001.

3. I have gone through the inquiry report dated 31.07.12 of the IO carefully along with all relevant records of the case. I find that the CO was proceeded with six articles of charges. The charges are very clear and specific. The article of charge No. I relates to fraudulent payment of Mitrapur SO Mo No. 1952 dated 17.12.2005 for Rs. 30/- by the CO. In support of the charge prosecution produced documentary evidence such as complaint dtd. 26.12.06 (Ext S-10 & written statement dtd. 26.12.06 of Sri gayadhar Nayak (Ext S-20, MO paid voucher in respect of Mitapur MO No. 1952 dtd 17.12.06 for Rs. 30/- (Ext S-3), specimen writing on specimen MO form (Ext S- 40 & specimen signatures on a sheet of paper of Sri Gayadhar Nayak (Ext S-5), written statement dtd 26.12.06 (Ext S-6) & 27.01.17 (Ext S-8) an specimen signatures on a sheet of paepr of Sri Niranjan Prusty GDS MD Nimpal Bo (Ext S-9), Postman Book from 04.05.02 to 20.06.06 (Ext S-12), BO journal from 01.08.05 to 06.02.06 (Ext S-13), BO daily account dtd. 28.12.05 (Ext S-17), BO account Book from 01.12.04 to 31.12.05 (Ext S-21) of Nimpal Bo and GEQD Kolkata opinion/report No. DXC-109/2007 dtd. 23.03.07 (Ext S-23) and examined Sri Gayadhar Nayak (SW -1), Sri Arkan Mallik (SW-

2), Sri Niranjan Prusty (Sw-3), Sri Rasananda Singh (SW-6), Sri Gopabandhu Sahu (SW

-10) and Sri Susen Peda (SW-13) in the enquiry. From the documentary as well as oral evidence adduced in the enquiry, it is seen that the CO neither made over the MO in question to the GDS DA of his office for effecting payment nor did he himself paid the MO to the remitted on 28.12.05. Instead the CO shoed the MO as paid voucher and charged the MO value to BO account of Nimpal BO on dated 28.12.2005. Sri Gayadhar Nayak remitter of the MO (SW-1) in his clear deposition deposed that he O.A. No. 424/2014 13 has neither taken payment of the MO value on 28.12.2005. Sri Niranjan Prusty GDS DA Nimpal BO (SW 3) deposed that the CO has neither that CO has neither made over the MO in question to him for effecting payment to the remitter nor did he (SW 3) sign on the MO paid voucher at the place provided for paying official on 28.12.05. In his clear and elaborate deposition, Sri G. B. Sahoo the then IP Rajnilgiri (SW 10) has corroborated the entire story of the case in the enquiry. Moreover, the GEQD Kolkata vide opinion dated 23.03.2007 (Ext S 230 confirms that the signature appearing in the MO paid voucher is not of the remitter Sri Gayadhar Nayak. The CO for his defence neither produced any defence witness nor did he brings out any substantial points in the article of charge contrary to the points raised by the prosecution during the inquiry rather brought out certain imaginary facts which are not at all reliable. In regard to the this charge the documentary as well as oral evidence adduced by the prosecution remained undisputed in the inquiry. The IO has correctly evaluated the evidences in holding the charge as proved.

In regards to article No. II, the prosecution produced documents such as BO account book of Nimpal Bo for the period from 01.05.2006 to 31.03.2009 (Ext S 220 and witness Sri B. K. Singha EX IP Rajnilgiri (SW 11) and Sri Susen Peda Ex-ASP (OD) Balasore Division (SW 12) in the enquiry. The documentary as well as oral evidence adduced by the prosecution remained undisputed in the inquiry. The admittance of the fact by the CO further leads to prove the article of charge against the CO.

The charge under article No. III is refusal by the CO in receiving the SPOs Balasore RL No. 2072 dated 03.09.2009 (Ext S-15). The prosecution produced documents such as wrapper of RL in question (Ext S-150, BO Slip of Nimpal BO dtd. 07.02.09 (Ext s-16), BO daily account of Nimpal BO dtd. 07.02.09 (Ext S-18) and Sri Rasananda Singh (SW

6), Sri Dolagobinda Behera (SW 50. The documentary and oral evidence adduced by the prosecution is support of the charge remained undisputed in the inquiry. Admittance of the fact by the CO further proves the article of charge against the CO.

As to the charge under article No IV, the prosecution produced documentary evidence such as written statement of S/s Pravakar Malik, Dharanidhar Shial and Niranjan Prusty all of dated 07.02.09 and exhibited as Ext S-19, S20 and S-7 respectively in the inquiry. All the SWs deposed that the CO categorically denied to receive SPOs Balasore memo dated 04.02.09 from Sri Pravakar Mallik and Sri Dharnidhar Shial both O/S mail of Rajnilgiri sub division on 06.02.09. The defence could not bring out any substantial points in the article of charge contrary to the points raised by the prosecution during the inquiry. The IO has correctly evaluated the evidences and held the charge as proved.

O.A. No. 424/2014 14

The charge under Article No. V consists of two parts of charges. In regard to the first part of the charge the IO held that without production of relevant records, the SW 11 and SW 12 (investigating authorities) could hardly detect the irregularities like non maintenance of BO account book, shortage of cash etc and therefore the IO is not inclined to hold this part of charge proved against the CO. As to the 2nd part of the charge prosecution produced document namely written statement dtd. 25.03.2009 of Sri Chandrakanta Pradhan (Ext S-11) and examined SW 3, SW 7, SW 8, SW 9, SW 11, SW 12 in the inquiry. All the SWs deposed in support of the charge in the enquiry while the CO though admitted the fact, clearly deposed that it is not the fact that he (CO) ran away with some records of the office. The fact is that he (CO) took back the BO records kept in the departmental vehicle for keeping the same in the office table. The plea taken by the CO in this regard is not acceptable since those records were seized/taken and kept in the departmental vehicle for further investigation by the investigating officer. The plea of the CO is also not supported with documentary evidence and therefore it is not sustainable. Moreover when CO admitted the fact vide written statement dated 25.03.09 (Ext S11), his plea has lost its credential value.

In support of the charge under article No. VI, the prosecution produced documents such as BO account book of Nimpal Bo from01.05.2006 to 31.03.2009 (Ext S 22), written statement of Shri Chandrakanta Pradhan dtd. 23.05.09 (Ext S 11), inventory of cash and stamp of Nimpal BO dtd. 25.03.09 (Ext S10) and examined state witness Sri Niranjan Prusty GDS MD Nimpal BO (SW 3), Sri Pravakar Mallil, O/S mail (SW 8), Sri Dharnidhar Sial O/s mail (Sw9), Sri Basanta Ku Singha the then IP Rajniligir (SW

11) and Sri Susen Peda, the then ASP (OD) Balasore (SW 12) in the enquiry. The CO in his representation dated 29.08.2012 put forth imaginary fact that the amount of Rs. 248/- remaining in the drawer of the table was not taken in to account while calculating the cash and stamp balance of the BO by the investigating officer. The plea advanced by the CO is just after thought matter not believable in as much as the fact could have been brought to the notice of the investigating authority then and there. Moreover credit of an amount of Rs. 248/- towards shortage of office cash by the CO quite proves the article of charge against the CO.

4. I find that both documentary and oral evidence adduced in support of all the charges remained undisputed in the inquiry. The defence could not bring out any substantial points in the article of charges contrary to the points raised by the prosecution besides certain imaginary facts having no documentary evidence to article No V which are not reliable and not acceptable. Further the CO in his defence representation dtd. 29.08.2012 has tried to defend the IOs report article wise bringing out different argument which are not all convincing. The CO by not paying the MO value to the remitter, keeping shortage in office cash as well as non maintaining vital office records, refusing to receive official letter has committed O.A. No. 424/2014 15 serious irregularities. His work is not free from doubts and suspicion. The department is running with officials having confidence and good faith while the CO has lost this by committing fault/forgery. The CO is found guilty of the charges. The IO has rightly held conclusively proved the charge No. I, II, III, IV, & VI and partially proved article No V. I agree with the findings of the IO.

5. In view of the fact and position of the case I fell that the charged official is not a fit person to be retained in service any more. Therefore, I Sri C. M. Mahapatra, Superintendent of Post Offices Balasore Division Balasore in exercise of power conferred upon me under GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules 2001 (now GDS Conduct & engagement Rules 2011) hereby award Shri Chandrakanta Pradhan GDS BPM Nimpal PO (under put off duty) in account with Mitrapur SO under Balasore HO the punishment of "REMOVAL" from service with immediate effect. The period of put off duty shall be treated as non duty for all purposes and Sri Pradhan is entitled to the extent of ex-gratia already paid to him for the period.

8. The representation of the applicant dated 23.04.2013 to the revisionary authority is extracted below:

"Most humbly your humble petitioner - Sri Chandrakanta Pradhan, EX GDS BPM Nimpal BO i/a/w Mitrapur SO of Balasore division begs to submit the following lines for kind consideration and sympathetic orders.

That, your humble petitioner was proceeded under rule 10 of GDS (C&E) Rules 2001 vide Supdt of POS Balasroe Division vide Memo No. F/Misc-15/05-06/Disc dtd. 1.12.2009, copy enclosed as Annexure -1.

That your humble petitioner submitted his defence representation in response to the memo of charges, a copy of the said representation is enclosed as annexure 2.

That the learned Disc. Authority i.e. SPOs Balasore Division, vide his memo no. F/Misc-15/05-06/Disc. Dtd. 28.9.12 imposed a penalty of removal from the service. Copy of the said order is enclosed as Annexure 3.

That your humble petitioner preferred an appeal to the learned DPS (Hqtrs.) Bhubaneswar, the appellate authority against the penalty imposed, copy of the said appeal is enclosed as Annexure 4.

O.A. No. 424/2014 16

That the Hon'ble Appellate Authority vide his order No. ST/48-7/2012 dtd 17.1.13 rejected the appeal and confirmed the punishment imposed by the Disc. Authority. A copy of the said order is enclosed as Annexure - 5. The memo No. ST/48-7/2012 dtd 17.1.13 of Appellate Authority has been delivered to me by SDI (P) RajNilgiri on 15.4.2013.

That, your humble petitioner therefore begs to submit this petition to his respected Chief PMG for kind consideration of this poor case for judicious and fair carriage of justice.

That as per memo of charges, the case against your humble petitioner is as under:

In the article no.1, Nimpal BO MO No 15 dated 16.12.05 for Rs. 30/- reissued at Mitrapur SO vide MO No. 1952 dated 17.12.05 for Rs. 30/- received back for payment to the remitter Sri Gayadhar Nayak.

The appellant in this case actually did not commit the violation of Rules as charged. The MO in question received back on 27.12.05 for effecting payment to the remitter Sri Gaydhar Nayak. As per rule the BPM Sri Chandrakanta Pradhan has made over MO to the GDSMD of his office for payment to the remitter noting on BO journal on 27.12.05 (Ext. S-13 (a)) and the same MO has been received by the GDSMD on that day. GDSMD has noted the MO in his postman book of Nimpal BO (Ext S-12) on 27.12.05 and the payment the MO in question to the remitter. The matter has been come to light during the course of proceeding and at the time of exhibiting the records on 15.11.2011 that the MO in question has been noted in the BO journal and postman book of Nimpal BO and the same has been exhibited as EXT S-12(b) and Ext S-13(a). The inquiry authority Sri Gopabandhu Sahu, the EX-SDI(P) of Raj Nilgiri Sub division has felt to reflect it during the course of inquiry, for which the GDS DA has not been charge sheeted. That, fact has admitted by Sri Gopabandhu Sahu (SW 10) on cross examination. In this charge the GDS DA is main offencer, but has not been charge sheeted. The defendant has been charge sheeted wrongly instead of GDS DA.

Secondly, the remitter of the MO Sri Gayadhar Nayak is 85 years old man, who has lost his memory. He has booked the MO on 17.12.05 and could not say when he submitted complaint, but admitted that he had received the amount of MO within one month, the date of booking of MO and before preferring the complaint. He has also admitted that the complaint has not submitted by him to the higher authority of department of posts, it was collected by the over seer mail of Raj Niligiri Sub Division accompanied by Inspector of Posts Raj Niligiri on 28.12.06 intentionally after one year of the booking of MO and receipt of value of the MO.

O.A. No. 424/2014 17

In this deposition on 15.11.2011 Sri Gayadhar Nayak (SW-1) during the course of cross examination had admitted that the complaint dtd. 28.12.06 has not been written by him and it has been written by another person whose name he cannot say and his written statement has been collected by the SDI (P) Raj Niligiri from him on 26.12.2006 the date of collected the complaint.

From the above facts it is seen that the charge has been framed against the appellant falsely, he actually not committed violation of any rules.

As per charge no. II the appellant while working as GDS BPM, Nimpal BO failed to maintain BO account book of Nimpal BO from 1.3.09 to 22.3.09. In this charge the defendant has actually not committed violation of any rule. He had not written the BO account regularly due to pressure of work. Though it is a day to day work the appellant to write the BO account at the end of the every month.

As per charge of article no. III the appellant has actually not committed grave misconduct as per provision of Rule 86 of BO rules. Supdt of Post Offices, Balasore Division RL No. 2070 dtd. 3.2.09 was addressed to BPM Bimpal BO by designation not in the name of Sri Chandrakanta Pradhan the EX BPM (EXT S 15). On the top of the wrapper (Ext S-15) of the Regd letter No. 2070 dtd 3.2.09, it is seen that the content of the Regd letter was Supdt of Post Offices, Balasore Division Memo No. F/Misc./15/05-06 dtd. 4.2.09.

The Memo No has written by the booking assistant Sri Dolagobinda Behera (SW 5) clearly on the top of the Regd Cover (Ext S-15). It is astonished that the memo issued on 4.2.09, how it has been sent to the appellant by Regd Post dtd. 3.2.09. This fact has admitted by Sri S. Pede, ASPOs (OD) (SW 12) at the time of cross examination. So this charge is false, imaginary and baseless.

As per charge no. IV of Article IV, Supdt of Post Offices, Balasore Division Memo No. F/Misc-15/05-06 dtd. 4.2.09 has not been exhibited by the PO during the course of proceeding as a list of document as charge framed against the appellant.

As per charge of article V of the charge sheet is concerned the appellant did not commit the violation of rules as charged. The appellant has produced the BO records i.e. BO account book and BO journal to Sri S. Peda ASPOS (OD) and Sri B K Singh, IPO Raj Niligir for checking. If the SPS has not produced the BO records how did Sri Singh and Sri Peda came to know that the SPS failed to maintain BO account Book of Nimpal BO from 1.3.09 to 22.3.09 as per Article II of charge sheet and how did said Sri O.A. No. 424/2014 18 Singh and said Sri Peda calculate the SPS has kept shortage of Rs. 248 (Rupees two hundred forty eight) only a per charge of article VI of charge sheet.

The appellant has not run away with BO records. This fact has admitted the state witness Sri Suraj Pradhan (SW 7) during cross examination. The other state witness version is also differ in this matter.

As per charge of article VI of charge sheet, the appellant did not commit violation of any rules meant for BO. Firstly on 25.3.09 Sri B K Singh IPO Raj Nilgiri, Sri S. Pede ASPOS (OD) Balasore Division, Sri Pravakar Mallik, O/S Mails and Shri Dharanidhar Shial, O/S Mails Raj Nilgiri sub division visited Nimpal BO on 25.3.09 in connection with put off duty case of Sri Chandrakanta Pradhan, the SPS. After arrived the ASPOS (OD) and the SDI (P) Raj Nilgiri while verifying the cash and stamp balance of the BO the said Sri Pradhan picked up BO records i.e. BO Account Book and BO journal and run away from the office as per charge of article no. V of charge sheet. Hence how did they calculate that a sum of Rs. 248/- has kept shortage by the BPM.

Summary the above in the article of charges, the apellant being a poor and innocent man of remote rural area was not conversant with the rules in their rigid structure, he has made over Mitrapur SO MO No. 1952 dtd. 17.12.05 to GDS MD of his office for payment to the remitter duly entered in BO journal on 27.12.05. Out of fear and inducment by the investigating inspector the appellant has credited the amount of Rs. 248/- in UCR towards shortage of cash and stamp which is remain in the drawer of the table of the BO.

The disciplinary authority has proved the charges falsely which are baseless, arbitrary, imaginary and build a castle without making any foundation. If the appellant is man of fraudulent nature than he has committed so many fraud during the period from 1.9.2001 to the date of his put off duty i.e. 25.3.09. But he did not do so which proves he is a man of honesty.

O.A. No. 424/2014 19

That, the disciplinary authority had miscontend the facts and inflicted extreme punishment in consideration of the facts and circumstances.

Prayer In the above circumstances, your humbly petioner prays before the magnamity of his respected CPMG for judicious consideration of facts and circumstances of the case with a lenient and humanitarian approach to free your humble petitioner from the baseless misconceived and unreasonable charges levelled againt him for which your humble petitioner will remain ever grateful from the bottom of his heart.

9. The order dated 28.01.2014 of the revisionary authority is extracted below:

"Sri Chandrakanta Pradhan Ex GDS BPM Nimpal Bo in account with Mitrapur SO (hereinafter called as petitioner) has preferred this petition dated 23.04.13 against the appellate order of the Appellate Authority DPS (HQ) Memo no.

ST/48-7/2012 dated 17.1.2013. The petitioner was awarded with the punishment of removal from service by the SPOs Balasore Division vide Memo No. F/Misc-15/05-06/Disc dated 28.09.2012 which was later upheld in appeal as cited above.

The charge against the petitioner are as follows:

Article I: Sri Chandrakanta Pradhan while working as GDSBPM Nimpal Bo in account with Mitrapur SO under Balasore Ho during the period from 01.09.01 to 25.03.09, on 28.12.05 the said Sri Pradhan did not make over Nimpal Bo MO No. 15 dtd. 16.12.05 for Rs. 30/- reissued at Mitrapur SO vide MO No. 1952 dtd. 17.12.05 forRs. 30/-

O.A. No. 424/2014 20

By his above acts, the said Sri Pradhan failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of him under Rule 21 of GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules 2001.

Article IV: The aforesaid Sri Chandrakanta Pradhan while working as such did not receive SPOs Balasore Memo No. F/Misc-15*05-06 dtd. 04.02.09 meant for him (Sri Pradhan) from Sri Pravakar Mallik and Sri Dharnaidhar Shial both overseer of mails of Rajnilgiri Sub Division on 06.02.09 and thereby the said Sri Pradhan exhibited grave misconduct as a GDSBPM.

By his above acts, the said Sri Pradhan failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of him under Rule 21 of GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules 2001.

Article V: The aforesaid Sri Chandrakanta Pradhan while working as such during the period from 01.09.01 to 25.03.09, on 25.03.09 did not produce BO records of Nimpal BO before Sri S Peda ASP (OD) Balasore Dn. And Sri B. K. Singha IPO Rajnilgiri for checking. Instead the said Sri Pradhan ran away with some BO records i.e. BO Account book BO journal etc and thereby exhibited gross misconduct as a GDSBPM O.A. No. 424/2014 21 By his above acts, the said Sri Pradhan failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of him under Rule 21 of GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules 2001..

By his above acts, the said Sri Pradhan failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of him under Rule 21 of GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules 2001.

All the article of charges so framed against the appellant was enquired in to by the inquiry officer who finally submitted his report on 31.07.12 proving all the article of charges except charge no v which was partially proved. A copy of the IOs report dated 31.07.12 was supplied to the appellant on 23.08.12 for submission of his written statement of defence. The appellant submitted his defence representation dated 29.08.12 to the disciplinary authority. After considering the defence representation of the appellant, the disciplinary authority i.e. the SPOs Balasore Dn awarded the punishment of removal from service vide his order dated 28.09.12.

The petitioner then challenged the said punishment order by preferring an appeal to the DPS (HQ) Circle Office, Bhubaneswar who upheld the said punishment order vide CO Memo No. ST/48-7/2012 dated 17.01.13.

Being aggrieved the petitioner has come up with the present petition dated 23.04.13 to the CPMG Odisha for consideration.

I have carefully gone through the petition, brief history of the case, para wise comments, charge sheet, defence representation of the petitioner, IOs report, punishment order, appellate order and other related records.

As regards Article No. I regarding payment of Nimpal BO MO No. 15 dated 16.12.05 for Rs. 30/- reissued at Mitrapur SO vide MO No. 1952 dated 17.12.05 for Rs. 30/- which was received for payment to the remitter Sri Gayadhar Nayak, it is found that the said MO was neither handed over to the GDS DA of his office for payment or paid by him personally to Sri Gayadahr Nayak, the remitter. There are ample documentary and oral evidences such as written complaint of the remitter Sri Nayak O.A. No. 424/2014 22 to the IPO Rajnilgiri, written statement of the GDS DA Sri Niranjan Prusty, the MO paid voucher, specimen signature of the remitter and the opinion of GEQD Kolkata to prove that the MO has been fraudulently paid by the petitioner on 28.12.05 to a person other than the remitter by forging the signature of the remitter and the amount has been charged to the BO account. The pleas taken by the petitioner that the GDS DA did not effect payment although he entered the same in the postman book is therefore not acceptable. The entry in the postman book has been made by the petitioner afterwards to hood wink his own fault.

As regards article no. II regarding non maintenance of the BO account book from 01.03.09 to 22.03.09, the same is admitted by the petitioner and it requires no revision. It is the duty of the petitioner to keep the account book up to date and the negligence of which is not excusable. The plea of heavy pressure of work as explained is not acceptable at all.

As regards article no III regarding non acceptance of RL No. 2070 dted 03.02.09 issued by the SPOs Balasore Division, it is found that although the petitioner was on duty on the said dates, he did not receive the said RL and marked 'Refused' on the wrapper and returned it on 07.02.09. The statements of Sri Rasananda Singh, SPM Nilgiri Colelge, Nilgiri (SW 6) and Sri Dolagovinda Behera, OA Divisional Office, Balasore are enough to establish the charge. The arguments of the petitioner regarding difference in the date of issue of he RL by the Divisional Office with that date of booking cannot be taken as a sound argument to justify his stand.

As regards article No. IV, the petitioner has committed grave misconduct by refusing to accept the SPOs Balasore Memo No. F/Misc-15/05-06/D dated 04.02.09 when presented to him on 06.02.09 by Sri Pravakar Mallick & Sri Dharanidhar Shial both O/s Mails Rajnigiri Sub Division. Both the O/S (Mails) have admitted the fact in their deposition before the Inquiry Officer. As such the charge can be taken as proved.

As regards Article No. V the involvement of the petitioner in taking away the BO records can not be totally ruled out. It was established during the preliminary & oral enquiry. The deposition of he petitioner dated 25.03.09 and other SWs at the time on enquiry were taken into account while arriving at such a decision. When the BO records were seized and kept in the vehicle for further examination, the petitioner cannot take the plea that he picked up the records from the vehicle to keep those on the table of BO.

As regards Article No. VI, the petitioners pleas that the amount kept in the drawer were not taken into account while verifying the cash balance of the BO is totally an O.A. No. 424/2014 23 afterthought in view of the fact that the same could have been brought to the notice of the ASPO(OD) and the IPO Rajnilgiri on the spot itself but it was not done.

The action of the petitioner by depositing the shortage amount in UCR, proves that he kept shortage of office cash.

From the above, it is quite clear that the charges brought against the petitioner have been proved on record. The petitioner has not performed his duty with full devotion for which he has been taken to task by the disciplinary authority and the punishment imposed has been upheld by the appellate authority. I find that the petitioner has not adduced any new points in his petition.

I, Sri Tilak De, CPMG, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar therefore reject the petition."

10. The scope of judicial review with respect to the departmental proceedings is limited. This Tribunal can interfere in the matter of disciplinary proceedings if the disciplinary/enquiry proceedings were conducted in violation of manner prescribed and against Principle of Natural Justice and if the order of concerned authority is non speaking and unreasoned. This Court can interfere in the matter of disciplinary proceedings if the decision making process is in violation of Rules or against Principle of Natural Justice. The judicial review in the matter of departmental proceedings is permissible with respect to decision making process and not against the decision itself unless it is shown that the decision is without any evidence or suffers from malafide or malice or harsh or without jurisdiction. In this regard Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Anr.. reported in 1996 AIR 484 has held as under:

O.A. No. 424/2014 24

"Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.

11. In the case of Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekhran 2015 (2) SCC page 610, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

" In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:

The enquiry is held by a competent authority;

The enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

O.A. No. 424/2014 25

There is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;

The authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;

The authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

The conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;

The disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;

The disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced he finding;

The finding of fact is based on no evidence."

O.A. No. 424/2014 26

12. It is seen that the applicant had participated in the departmental inquiry in question. He had not prayed for examination of any witness in his favour.

He did not prefer for own examination as defence witness but the inquiry officer had examined him. Learned counsel for the applicant had drawn the attention of this Tribunal to the inquiry report and, in fact, there is much force in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant to the limited extent that the inquiry officer has used the word "inferences" at many places while coming to the conclusion that the charges against the applicant are proved in respect of charge nos. I, II, III, IV & VI while charge no. V as partly proved. The said argument at its first flush may seem to be attractive, but on close and careful scrutiny of the inquiry report in question, it is seen that the IO while coming to the conclusion that the charge nos. I, II, III, IV & VI have been conclusively proved and charge no. V have been partly proved, has discussed the evidence adduced by PWs, the documents adduced on behalf of the department and has mentioned that the said documents have remained undisputed during the inquiry. He, i.e. the IO, has also relied upon the admission made by the applicant in this regard. It appears that use of the word inference by the IO for the purpose of concluding that the charges in question has been proved is not appropriate. It was expected from the IO that he should have given categorical findings as to whether the charges against the applicant has been proved or not. It is settled principle of law that in a departmental inquiry, the allegation as made against delinquent is not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but it can be proved in the standard of pre-ponderance of probability.

O.A. No. 424/2014 27

The use of the word 'inferences' in many place in the inquiry report cannot be given much importance in the facts and circumstances of this case, when the inquiry officer had adequately and elaborately discussed the oral and documentary evidence on record as well as the fact that the applicant had made admission in this regard and the documents in question have not been disputed during the inquiry. The use of the word 'inferences' in the inquiry report also loses any importance at all in view of the fact that the disciplinary authority in his order dated 28.09.2012 (Annexure A/4), the appellate authority vide his order dated 17.01.2013 (Annexure A/6) and so also the revisionary authority vide his order dated 28.01.2014 (Annexure A/8) have categorically found that the allegation made against the applicant at Sl. No. I, II, III, IV & VI have been proved and at Sl. No. V as partly proved. It is not the case of the applicant that this is a case of no evidence and it is also not his case that any inadmissible piece of evidence has been accepted by the authorities and that any admissible evidence has been illegally overlooked or rejected by the authorities while coming to the conclusion of findings against the applicant. The fact that the applicant had admitted the allegation against him in written statement dated 25.03.20009 exhibit S/11 has also been dealt by the authorities. The IO as well as disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisionary authority have also discussed the evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the plea taken by the applicant in this regard is not acceptable. The factual findings as arrived by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and thereafter by the revisionary authority cannot be O.A. No. 424/2014 28 reassessed by this Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of this case as already discussed earlier. It is not proved by the applicant that there has been illegality or irregularity during the inquiry. No allegation of bias or malafide has been made out against any of the authorities. The applicant was given due opportunity to defend himself. The disciplinary authority, appellate authority as well as the revisionary authority have considered the matter judiciously and have passed speaking and reasoned orders. The decision making process has not been vitiated. As regards the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant that the punishment, as imposed on the applicant is harsh, we neither find it harsh, disproportionate or in any ways shocks the conscience of this Tribunal. The quantum of fraud is not important vis a vis establishment that fraud has been committed as regards to punishment.

13. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed being devoid of merit but in the circumstances without any order to cost.

(T. JACOB)                                       (SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA)
MEMBER (A)                                          MEMBER (J)

(csk)

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack

Chandrakanta Pradhan vs D/O Post on 29 October, 2021