Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Kamlesh Kumar Mandavi vs M/O Communications on 4 July, 2023
1 OA No 200/696/2013
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/696/2013
Jabalpur this Tuesday the 04th day of July, 2023
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Kamlesh Kumar Mandavi, S/o Sri Dayaluram Mandavi, Aged about 54 years,
R/o Village Pander, P.O. Gujra, Tehsil Patan, District Durg-491 111 (CG)
-Applicant
(By Advocate - Shri Vijay Tripathi)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Communication & IT,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110 001.
2. Chief Postmaster General, Chhattishgarh Circle, Raipur (CG) 492 001.
3. Director, Postal Services, Raipur Region, Raipur (C.G.) 492 001.
4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Durg Division. Civic Centre, Bhilai
490 006 (C.G.)
-Respondents
(By Advocate - Sri S.K. Mishra)
(Date of Reserving order 27.6.2023)
Page 1 of 10
2 OA No 200/696/2013
ORDER
By Kumar Rajesh Chandra Member (A) The applicant has filed this O.A. under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-
"(i) Summon the entire relevant record from the respondents for its kind perusal
(ii) Set-aside the charge sheet dated 29.10.2012 (Annexure A/1) order dated 15.3.2013 (Annexure A/2) and order dated 10.7.2013 (Annexure A/3) with all consequential benefits.
(iii) Direct the respondents to refund the recovered amount to the applicant with 18% interest.
(iv) Any other order/direction may also be passed.
(v) Award cost of the litigation to the applicant."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was issued a Charge- sheet dated 29.10.2012 under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. To this, the applicant submitted his reply/representation on 5.11.2012 denying the charges levelled against him. It is alleged in the O.A. that without considering the reply of the applicant against the charge-sheet, the respondent no.3 passed an order dated 15.3.2013 whereby the punishment of recovery to the tune of Rs. 1,03,500/- has been inflicted upon the applicant, which was directed to be recovered in 25 equal installments of Rs. 4000/- per month and last installment was ordered to be recovered @ Rs. 3500/-. Page 2 of 10
3 OA No 200/696/2013 2.1 Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 7.4.2013 by taking numerous grounds. When the appeal of the applicant was not decided for quite some time, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 366 of 2013, which came to be decided finally vide order dated 23.4.2013 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the appeal of the applicant within a period of 90 days. In compliance of the order of this Tribunal, the appellate authority considered and rejected the appeal of the applicant vide order dated 10.7.2013. The case of the applicant is that while deciding the appeal of the applicant, the appellate authority has failed to consider the grounds/pleas raised in the appeal and in a summary manner, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal of the applicant without application of mind. Hence, this O.A.
3. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents have refuted the claim of the applicant by filing a detailed Counter Reply wherein they have stated that the applicant had worked as a Ledger Assistant I in SBSO Group HO in broken periods from 14.7.1999 to 11.1.2000. As per daily list of HO, he was entrusted with the duty of prescribed checking and ledger posting of vouchers received from Sector 8 Sub post office along with other SOs, but he did not Page 3 of 10 4 OA No 200/696/2013 complete the ledger posting on the date mentioned in para no.1 of the Reply. Apart from that, he did not tally/compare the signature of the depositor mentioned in the withdrawal form (SB-7) with the application for the opening of account (SB-3 Card) available at HO.
3.1 The respondents further stated that due to aforesaid negligence, the applicant was issued a chargesheet under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 requiring the applicant to submit his reply, which was replied by the applicant by submitting a representation/reply denying the charges levelled against him. After considering the reply of the applicant and also after considering the gravity of the charges levelled against the applicant, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 15.3.2013 has imposed the punishment of recovery to the tune of Rs. 1,03,500/-, which was sought to be recovered in 25 equal installments of Rs. 4000/- per month and last installment was to be made @ Rs. 3500/-.
3.2 The respondents further stated that against the punishment order dated 15.3.2013, the applicant rushed to this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 366 of 2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.4.2013 with direction to the Page 4 of 10 5 OA No 200/696/2013 appellate authority to decide the appeal of the applicant within a period of 90 days. In compliance thereof, the appellate authority has considered and rejected the appeal of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order, which is under challenge in the instant O.A. The respondents also pleaded that while passing the orders, impugned in the Application, they have followed all rules and regulations on the subject as well as the principles of natural justice and as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. In conclusion, they have stated that the O.A. has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. The applicant has filed Rejoinder to the Reply filed by the respondents by negating the contentions of the respondents made in the Reply, while reiterating the averments made in the Original Application and nothing new has been added.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his claim:
(i) Than Singh Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 2003 (3) ATJ 42.
(ii) C.N. Harihara Nandanan Vs. Presidency P.M. Madras GPO & Another reported in 1988 (8) ATC 673.Page 5 of 10
6 OA No 200/696/2013
(iii) Smt. Kalpana Shinde Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 2005 (1) ATJ 45.
(iv) J.M. Makwana Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 2002 (1) ATJ 283.
(v) R.B.S. Tagore Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Jabalpur Bench of Tribunal in O.A. No. 807 of 2017 on 16th May, 2019.
(vi) Jyoti Goyner Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Jabalpur Bench of Tribunal in O.A. No. 459 of 2017 on 11 th January, 2018.
(vii) Y.N. Shripad Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Jabalpur Bench of Tribunal in O.A. No. 534 of 2011 on 14th August, 2018
(viii) Anu Bala etc. Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 29-33 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 7437-7441 of 2014.
(ix) Amrita Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No. 15808 of 2017 on 7th March, 2019
(x) Union of India & Others Vs. Ajay Agarwal decided by Hon'ble M.P. High Court in M.P. No. 1798 of 2017 on 2.1.2018
(xi) O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180
(xii) Sunil Kumar Jain Vs. State of M.P. & Others decided by Hon'ble M.P. High Court in W.P. No. 18034 of 2019 on 29.11.2019.
(xiii) Rajendra Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Others decided by Hon'ble M.P.High Court at Gwalior in W.P. No. 18375 of 2019 on 4.9.2019.
(xiv) Sudisht Narayan Jha Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Hon'ble M.P. High Court in Misc. Petition No. 1056 of 2023 on 16th June, 2023.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his arguments has cited the following decisions:-
Page 6 of 10
7 OA No 200/696/2013
(i) Union of India & Others Vs. M.L. Khare decided by Hon'ble M.P. High Court in Writ petition No. 10471 of 2010 (s) on 28.9.2011.
(ii) R.S. Dwivedi Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 708 of 2013 on 11 th August, 2015.
(iii) Sudisht Narayan Jha Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 187 of 2016 on 08.2.2023.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the pleadings available on record.
8. The facts of the case are not in dispute. It is trite principle of law that Courts/Tribunals cannot interfere in the quantum of punishment as awarded by the disciplinary authority or appellate authority, as the case may be, unless and until there is discrepancy/shortcomings in the decision making process.
9. The first limb of argument by the applicant is an assertion that charges levelled against the applicant are vague and it is delayed. A simple perusal of charge-sheet at Annexure-1 reveals that the charges are specific with names of account-holders where no ledger posting was done by the applicant leading to fraudulent with drawls by Sri D.M. Dongre So far as the delay is concerned, it has been explained that departmental enquiry into the fraudulent withdrawal Page 7 of 10 8 OA No 200/696/2013 was going on and charges were levelled against the applicant after thorough enquiry that was a time consuming process.
10. Secondly, the applicant has failed to point out any irregularity or deficiency in the decision making process, which warrants interference of this Tribunal. The order, impugned in the Application, at Annexure-2 and Annexure-3 have been passed after affording reasonable opportunity to the applicant and also keeping in mind the gravity of the charges levelled against him as such it cannot be said that the punishment so awarded by the disciplinary authority is not commensurate with the gravity of the charges leveled against him. More-over, the order so passed by the Appellate authority in compliance of the order of this Tribunal is a reasoned and speaking order as they have passed the orders after considering the points raised by the applicant in his appeal and also keeping in mind the gravity of the charges leveled against him and as such there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Appellate authority/Revisionary authority, hence no interference is called for.
11. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the order of the Disciplinary authority is non-est on the ground that the disciplinary authority Page 8 of 10 9 OA No 200/696/2013 failed to pass an express order under Rule 16(1)(b). In this regard, we may examine the provisions of Rule 16(1)(b) of CCS (CCA) Rules, which provides as under:-
"holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary"
From perusal of the said rule, it is clear that in the cases where the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that the inquiry is needed under Rule (3) to (23) of Rules, then the inquiry ought to have taken place under the ibid rules. In the instant case, no such view was expressed by the disciplinary authority at any stage to conduct an inquiry under the aforementioned rules and as such the plea/version of the applicant's counsel that the inquiry must have been conducted under the aforementioned rules, without expressing the opinion of the disciplinary authority, falls to ground.
12. We may also note that it is not the case of the applicant that the relevant documents has not been furnished for perusal to the applicant, when a specific request was made in this regard and as such it cannot be said that the relied upon documents has not been furnished/produced to the applicant before passing the impugned order. On this score too, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal one.
Page 9 of 10
10 OA No 200/696/2013
13. As already stated above, ample and reasonable opportunity has been afforded to the applicant before passing the punishment order and as such the punishment order as well as appellate order are legal and valid, after following the due procedure.
14. We have also carefully perused the decisions as cited by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of his claim, but none of them would get any help to the applicant as the facts and circumstances of the cited cases are different from the facts and circumstances of the case, in hand.
15. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned orders. The O.A. has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed accordingly. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Justice Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Girish/-
Page 10 of 10