Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vijay Singh vs D/O Post on 29 January, 2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA 3718/2016
MA 2850/2017
Reserved on 07.01.2020
Pronounced on 29.01.2020
Hon'ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr.Mohd.Jamshed, Member (A)
Vijay Singh,
(Aged about 55 years)
S/o Late Sh. Dhanpal Singh,
R/o 31-A/173-A, Jangjeet Nagar,
Shamshabad Road, Agra-282001. .. Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr.Basab Sengupta with Mr.G.S.Lobana )
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-110001
2. The Director Postal Services
O/o Post Master General,.
Agra Region,Agra-282001
3. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices
Agra Division, Agra-282002. ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. M.S. Reen )
ORDER
(Hon'ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J):
We have heard Mr. Besab Sengupta, counsel for applicant and Mr. M.S.Reen, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and documents produced by both the parties.
2 OA 3718/20162. In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(a) Quash and set aside the inquiry report dated 3.3.2015.
(b) Quash and set aside the penalty order dt. 10.6.2015 and appellate order dt. 21.6.2016 rendered by respondents no.3 and 2 respectively against the applicant.
(c) Order the applicant's reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.
(d) Pass such other/or further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The relevant facts of the case are that during the period of 01.06.1998 to 07.07.1998 at Agra Fort Head Post Office fraudulent money orders payment of bogus money orders and missing of money order paid vouchers in respect of money orders charged amounting to Rs.1440000/- came to light on 07.07.1998 during that period the applicant was working as Treasurer and after preliminary enquiry a charge sheet was issued to the applicant vide Memorandum dated 01.03.2001 proposing to hold an enquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. After completing of the disciplinary proceedings, a punishment of compulsory retirement from service was imposed on the applicant vide memo dated 30.09.2003. The appeal preferred by the applicant was dismissed by the appellate authority on 13.10.2004. In the first round of 3 OA 3718/2016 litigation, the applicant filed OA No. 2899/2004 before this Tribunal.
Vide order dated 23.11.2006, this Tribunal partially allowed the OA setting aside the order of the appellate authority dated 13.10.2004 with a direction to the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal of the applicant in the light of the provisions of Rule 27 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and to pass a reasoned and speaking order. In compliance with the said order of this Tribunal, the appellate authority after reconsidering the appeal set aside punishment of compulsory retirement and remitted back the case to the disciplinary authority with a direction to hold de novo proceedings from the stage of issuing charge sheet as per rules.
4. In compliance with the said order of the appellate authority a fresh memo of charge was issued on 02.01.2008 proposing to hold departmental enquiry de novo under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on the above stated irregularities. The detailed charges of article are extracted below:-
"Article-1 It is alleged that Shri Vijay Singh while working as ATR- III in Agra Fort HPO on 12-06-98 received imp rest of Rs.134297.00 from HTR Agra Fort HO and took this amount in his treasures hand to hand receipt book. Out of the above amount he drawn Rs.127853.00 for memo in respect of MO's sent out for payment on 12.06.98 through Postmen of Agra Fort HO as per his cash receipt book and ATR-1 cash receipt Book. After taking returned from Postman, he transferred cash Rs.6986/- to ATR-1 as cash in r/o MO's returned as unpaid. On 4 OA 3718/2016 12.06.98, the memo for MO payment of Belanganj Agra-4 was for Rs.20897.00 out of which amount Rs.2745.00 was returned in respect of MOs returned as unpaid. Rs.22705.00 for MO payment at window were received by Shri Vijayant Vikram Singh PA MO paid from ATR-1. Thus, there was total MO payment on 12.06.98 was Rs.143572.00 at Agra Fort HO & Rs.18152.00 at Belanganj PO Agra including void MO payment Rs.1111/-. Thus, the amount of Rs.127853/- drawn by said Shri Vijay Singh for payment of memo in his ATR- III cash receipt Book was the amount including value of HVMO's No. 9472 dated 03.06.98 for Rs.20000.00 shown issued from Panaji payable to Shri R.H.Meena, SDE, Tax Bhawan Agra, MO No. 2529 dated 03.06.98 for Rs.20000/- payable to Shri D.C.Dayal 0/0 SDE Tax Bhawan Agra-3 shown issued from Jabalpur and MO No. 2978 dated 03.06.98 for Rs.20000/- payable to Shri R.C.Saxena DET Tax Bhawan Agra-3 shown issued from Jabalpur. All the above particularized MOs were to be paid in the beat of one postman beat no. 79 Shri Data Ram and as per monitory limit such MVMO's of total amount Rs.60000/- were cannot be paid though postman and could be paid at window. Shri Data Ram in his W/S dated 18.07.98 & 28.07.98 has denied their payment by him and accordingly the above referred HVMOs were neither included in memo of MO's for payment through postman nor cash Rs.60000/- was given to the concerned postman. The above referred particularized HVMO's were found to be bogus on report of concerned units, under reference to DO Agra. Shri Vijay Singh also failed to get these MO's paid at window by giving cash under receipt to the counter PA in his ATR-III cash book, Shri Vijay Singh also failed to get the receipt of total amount Rs.127853/- for payment of memo acknowledged under initial of Shri Vijayant Vikram Singh MO paid PA in his treasurer cash book and thus loss of Rs.60000/- was caused to the department due to not following the prescribed procedure by said Shri Vijay Singh ATR-III. Thus Shri Vijay Singh PA (U/S) violating the provisions of Rule-27(2) and 33 (7) of Postal Manual Vol.VI. Part-III which caused loss of Rs.60000/- to the department, did not maintain 5 OA 3718/2016 absolute integrity, devotion to his duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Govt. Servant violating Rule 3(1) (i), (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules-1964.
Article-II It is alleged that Shri Vijay Singh while working as ATR- III Agra Fort HO on 01-07-98 received advance of Rs.152118/- out of which he drawn Rs.150243/- for payment of memo of money orders as per his hand to hand treasurer receipt book and ATR-1 cash receipt Book while MO's of total money Rs.70243/- were given to postmen beat 51 to 80 out of which cash Rs.29505/- was returned by postmen in respect of unpaid money orders as per hand to hand cash receipt of ATR-III. Thus on 01.07.98 money orders amounting to Rs.80000/- were neither issued to postmen nor to counter PA for payment at window. Shri Vijay Singh did not get acknowledged the amount drawn for payment of memo of money orders under initials by MO paid assistant Shri Vijayant Vikram Singh. The amount Rs.80000/-drawn by said Shri Vijay Singh from treasury in excess of actual value of MO's issued for payment Rs.70243 was adjusted by showing the payment against Saharanpur MO No.8585 for Rs.50000/- and Ahmedabad MO No. 2994 for Rs.30000/- which were found to be bogus on report of Sr. Postmaster Saharanpur vide his letter No. CR-8/MO-4/98 dated 03.9.98 and Chief Postmaster Ahmedabad GPO vide his no. CRF/Misc/98-99 dated 07.08.98 under DO Agra office reference dated 20.07.98 and accordingly loss of Rs.80000/- was caused to the department. Shri Vijay Singh ATR- III by drawing Rs.80000/- in excess then the required amount Rs.70243/- for disbursement of memo of MO payment and by not getting the amount Rs.150243/- acknowledged under initial of MO paid PA Shri Vijayant Vikram Singh violated the provision of Rule-27 (2) and 33(7) of Postal Manual Vol. VI Part-III and there by failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in such a manner which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant violating Rule-3 (i), (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules-1964."6 OA 3718/2016
Article-III It is alleged that Shri Vijay Singh while working as ATR- III Agra Fort HO on 04-07-98 received advance Rs. 128294/- out of which he drawn Rs.119810/- for payment of memo of money orders as per his hand to hand treasurer receipt book while MO's of total amount Rs. 39810/- were given to postmen beat No. 51 to 80. Out of which MO's worth Rs. 7942 were returned as unpaid by postmen along with the cash. Thus on 04-07-98 no money orders amounting to Rs.80000/- were neither issued to postman nor to counter assistant for payment at window. Said Shri Vijay Singh did not get acknowledged the amount drawn for payment of memo of money orders under initials by MO paid assistant Shri Vijayant Vikram Singh in his hand to hand cash receipt Book.
The amount Rs.80000/- drawn by said Shri Vijay Singh from treasury in excess of actual amount of memo of MOs issued for payment for Rs.39810/- was adjusted by showing the payment against MO No. 1829 for Rs.30000/- shown issued from Nagpur MO No. 1879 for Rs.21000/- shown issued from Dehradun and MO No. 2611 for Rs.29000/- shown issued from Calcutta which were found to be bogus on report of concerned unit under this office reference.
Shri Vijay Singh ATR-III by drawing Rs.80000/- excess than the required amount Rs.39810/- for disbursement of memo of MO payment and by not getting the amount of Rs.119810/- acknowledged under initial of MO paid assistant violated provisions of Rule- 27(2) & 33(7) of Postal Manual Vol-VI Part-III and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in such a manner which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant violating Rule-3(1) (i),
(ii), (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules-1964."
Alongwith the article of charges, statement of imputation of misconduct, list of documents and list of witnesses were served on the applicant. The applicant filed OA No. 194/2009 challenging the 7 OA 3718/2016 proposal to hold a departmental enquiry by the above said memo dated 02.01.2008. This Tribunal vide order dated 31.08.2009 dismissed the OA of the applicant stating that the OA is devoid of merit. Thereafter, as the applicant did not admit the charges, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer following the principles of natural justice and rules governing the holding of the departmental enquiry conducted the departmental enquiry and examined PW-1 to PW-8 and took on record exhibit Ka-I to Ka-33 and discussed the deposition of each of those witnesses and analyzed the documents and framed points for consideration and took on record the contention of the applicant and came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the applicant are fully proved by his inquiry report dated 03.03.2015. The inquiry report is extracted below:-
"Inquiry report The enquiry relates to the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules-1965 against Shri Vijay Singh Assistant Agra Fort HO (Under suspension) vide Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices, Agra Division, Agra Memo No.F-3/1/98-99/Disc/Vijay Singh dated 02.01.2008 duly suspended with Annexure -I, Annexure-II and Annexure-IV for his alleged negligence in discharge of his duties as Assistant Treasurer-III Agra Fort HO resulting in facilitation of fraud committed by Shri Vijayant Vikram Singh Money order Paid Assistant Agra Fort HO. Consequent denial of the charges by the said Shri Vijay Singh, Shri Ram Sahai ADPS O/O the Postmaster General Agra was appointed as inquiry officer to enquire into the charges framed against him 8 OA 3718/2016 vide SSPOs Ara Memo No. F-3/1/98-99/Disc/Vijay Singh dated 06.02.2008 and Shri V.K.Shukla the then SDI (P) East Agra was appointed as presenting officer in the case but later on I was appointed as inquiry officer vide SSPOs Agra Memo. No.F-3/1/98-99/Disc/Vijay Singh dated 04.04.2011 and due to transfer of Shri V.K.Shukla to some other Division. Shri Narendra Kumar SDI (West) Sub Division Agra was appointed as presenting officer vice him vide SSPOs Agra memo. No.F-3/1/98-99/Disc/Vijay Singh dated 20.07.2011. The article of charges framed against Shri Vijay Singh PA Agra Fort HO (U/S) as contained in Annexure-1 enclosed to the above cited memo dated 02.01.2008 is reproduced as under:-
Annexure-1 Statement of Article of charges framed against Shri Vijay Singh PA (U/S) Agra Fort HO.
Article-1 It is alleged that Shri Vijay Singh while working as ATR- III in Agra Fort HPO on 12-06-98 received imp rest of Rs.134297.00 from HTR Agra Fort HO and took this amount in his treasures hand to hand receipt book. Out of the above amount he drawn Rs.127853.00 for memo in respect of MO's sent out for payment on 12.06.98 through Postmen of Agra Fort HO as per his cash receipt book and ATR-1 cash receipt Book. After taking returned from Postman, he transferred cash Rs.6986/- to ATR-1 as cash in r/o MO's returned as unpaid. On 12.06.98, the memo for MO payment of Belanganj Agra-4 was for Rs.20897.00 out of which amount Rs.2745.00 was returned in respect of MOs returned as unpaid. Rs.22705.00 for MO payment at window were received by Shri Vijayant Vikram Singh PA MO paid from ATR-1. Thus, there was total MO payment on 12.06.98 was Rs.143572.00 at Agra Fort HO & Rs.18152.00 at Belanganj PO Agra including void MO payment Rs.1111/-. Thus, the amount of Rs.127853/- drawn by said Shri Vijay Singh for payment of memo in his ATR- III cash receipt Book was the amount including value of HVMO's No. 9472 dated 03.06.98 for Rs.20000.00 shown issued from Panaji payable to Shri R.H.Meena, SDE, Tax Bhawan Agra, MO No. 2529 dated 03.06.98 9 OA 3718/2016 for Rs.20000/- payable to Shri D.C.Dayal 0/0 SDE Tax Bhawan Agra-3 shown issued from Jabalpur and MO No. 2978 dated 03.06.98 for Rs.20000/- payable to Shri R.C.Saxena DET Tax Bhawan Agra-3 shown issued from Jabalpur. All the above particularized MOs were to be paid in the beat of one postman beat no. 79 Shri Data Ram and as per monitory limit such MVMO's of total amount Rs.60000/- were cannot be paid though postman and could be paid at window. Shri Data Ram in his W/S dated 18.07.98 & 28.07.98 has denied their payment by him and accordingly the above referred HVMOs were neither included in memo of MO's for payment through postman nor cash Rs.60000/- was given to the concerned postman. The above referred particularized HVMO's were found to be bogus on report of concerned units, under reference to DO Agra. Shri Vijay Singh also failed to get these MO's paid at window by giving cash under receipt to the counter PA in his ATR-III cash book, Shri Vijay Singh also failed to get the receipt of total amount Rs.127853/- for payment of memo acknowledged under initial of Shri Vijayant Vikram Singh MO paid PA in his treasurer cash book and thus loss of Rs.60000/- was caused to the department due to not following the prescribed procedure by said Shri Vijay Singh ATR-III. Thus Shri Vijay Singh PA (U/S) violating the provisions of Rule-27(2) and 33 (7) of Postal Manual Vol.VI. Part-III which caused loss of Rs.60000/- to the department, did not maintain absolute integrity, devotion to his duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Govt. Servant violating Rule 3(1) (i), (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules-1964.
Article-II It is alleged that Shri Vijay Singh while working as ATR-III Agra Fort HO on 01-07-98 received advance of Rs.152118/- out of which he drawn Rs.150243/- for payment of memo of money orders as per his hand to hand treasurer receipt book and ATR-1 cash receipt Book while MO's of total money Rs.70243/- were given to postmen beat 51 to 80 out of which cash Rs.29505/- was returned by postmen in respect of unpaid money orders as per hand to hand cash receipt of ATR-III. Thus on 01.07.98 money orders amounting to Rs.80000/- were neither issued to postmen nor to counter PA for payment at window. Shri Vijay Singh did 10 OA 3718/2016 not get acknowledged the amount drawn for payment of memo of money orders under initials by MO paid assistant Shri Vijayant Vikram Singh. The amount Rs.80000/-drawn by said Shri Vijay Singh from treasury in excess of actual value of MO's issued for payment Rs.70243 was adjusted by showing the payment against Saharanpur MO No.8585 for Rs.50000/- and Ahmedabad MO No. 2994 for Rs.30000/- which were found to be bogus on report of Sr. Postmaster Saharanpur vide his letter No. CR-8/MO-4/98 dated 03.9.98 and Chief Postmaster Ahmedabad GPO vide his no. CRF/Misc/98-99 dated 07.08.98 under DO Agra office reference dated 20.07.98 and accordingly loss of Rs.80000/- was caused to the department. Shri Vijay Singh ATR- III by drawing Rs.80000/- in excess then the required amount Rs.70243/- for disbursement of memo of MO payment and by not getting the amount Rs.150243/- acknowledged under initial of MO paid PA Shri Vijayant Vikram Singh violated the provision of Rule-27 (2) and 33(7) of Postal Manual Vol. VI Part-III and there by failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in such a manner which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant violating Rule-3 (i), (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules-1964."
Article-III It is alleged that Shri Vijay Singh while working as ATR- III Agra Fort HO on 04-07-98 received advance Rs. 128294/- out of which he drawn Rs.119810/- for payment of memo of money orders as per his hand to hand treasurer receipt book while MO's of total amount Rs. 39810/- were given to postmen beat No. 51 to 80. Out of which MO's worth Rs. 7942 were returned as unpaid by postmen along with the cash. Thus on 04-07-98 no money orders amounting to Rs.80000/- were neither issued to postman nor to counter assistant for payment at window. Said Shri Vijay Singh did not get acknowledged the amount drawn for payment of memo of money orders under initials by MO paid assistant Shri Vijayant Vikram Singh in his hand to hand cash receipt Book.
The amount Rs.80000/- drawn by said Shri Vijay Singh from treasury in excess of actual amount of memo of MOs issued for payment for Rs.39810/- was adjusted by showing the payment against MO No. 1829 11 OA 3718/2016 for Rs.30000/- shown issued from Nagpur MO No. 1879 for Rs.21000/- shown issued from Dehradun and MO No. 2611 for Rs.29000/- shown issued from Calcutta which were found to be bogus on report of concerned unit under this office reference.
Shri Vijay Singh ATR-III by drawing Rs.80000/- excess than the required amount Rs.39810/- for disbursement of memo of MO payment and by not getting the amount of Rs.119810/- acknowledged under initial of MO paid assistant violated provisions of Rule- 27(2) & 33(7) of Postal Manual Vol-VI Part-III and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in such a manner which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant violating Rule-3(1) (i),
(ii), (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules-1964."
2. The above cited memo dated 01.01.2008 duly dispatched under Sanjay Place PO Agra RL No. A-1967 dated 03.01.2008 was delivered to Shri Vijay Singh PA (U/S) on 04.01.2008 at his residence H.No. 31A/173A Jangjeet Nagar, Shamsabad Road Agra-1.
3. In the sitting of first hearing held on 11.07.2011 in the O/O SDI East Agra at Sanjay Place Agra. The charges framed against Shri Vijay Singh charged official were read over to him but the charged official denied them in Toto, hence it was decided to proceed the enquiry further. The charged official also submitted an application dated 11.07.2011 duly endorsed with the consent of Shri P.C.Jain Retd. Postmaster R/o 52 Shiv Nagar, Tundla, Distt. Firozabad nominating him to act as his defence assistant in the instant enquiry. The request of the charged official was acceded to accordingly. Attested photocopies of the listed documents in annexure-III of charge sheet were supplied to him by the P.O in the presence of Defence Assistant on 12.09.2011. No objection was raised by the C.O/D.A against the listed documents supplied by the P.O. during enquiry.
4. During the course of oral enquiry, the C.O. requested vide his application dated 26.09.2011 for supply of additional documents. All the requisite additional documents except the enquiry report listed at Sl No.1 were permitted to be supplied to him in view of the justification shown by the C.O. The presenting 12 OA 3718/2016 officer was directed to make available the permitted documents accordingly vide order sheet No.5. The certified copies of additional documents listed at Sl. No.11 and 12 of the application were supplied to the C.O. on 23.01.2012 and rest of the requisite documents could not be supplied due to non availability of them as intimated by the disciplinary authority. No defence witness was adduced by the C.O. in the enquiry.
5. The oral enquiry was commenced on 11.07.2011 and it continued on 16.08.2011, 29.08.2011, 12.09.2011, 27.09.2011, 20.01.2012, 13.02.2012, 19.04.2012, 07.05.2012 and completed on 21.05.2012 as per prescribed program. The detail of each sitting of the enquiry is given in the daily order sheets from Sl. No.1 to 10 appended to the inquiry report.
6. The prosecution witnesses Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma Retd. SPM Etmadpur and Shri Balmukund the then APM Agra Fort HO (Retd.) listed at Sl. No.2 and 5 of Annexure-IV of the charge sheet did not attend the enquiry despite the notices issued to them under registered post for attending enquiry on 13.02.2012, 19.04.2012, 07.05.2012 and 21.07.2012 as such they were dropped in the enquiry on the advice of the Presenting Officer.
7.1 The presenting officer adduced the following prosecution witnesses on behalf of disciplinary authority in the enquiry:-
PW-1 Shri R.N.Sharma Retd. Dy.SPOs Agra PW-2 Shri Rajesh Kumar Paliwal AAO(BD & DDA) C.O.Lucknow PW-3 Shri P.N.Sharma Retd. Dy. Postmaster Agra HO PW-4 Shri Prabhu Dayal, Retd. APM Agra Fort HO PW-5 Shri Babu Lal, Retd. SSPOs Jhansi PW-6 Shri R.N.Yadav, ASRM 'G' Dn. Gorakhpur PW-7 Shri Badri Prasad, PA Agra HO PW-8 Shri Data Ram, Retd. Postman Beat No.79 Agra Fort HO Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma and Shri Balmukand both the prosecution witnesses did not attend the enquiry as discussed in preceding para No.6.13 OA 3718/2016
7.2 Attested photocopies of the following documents as listed in Annexure-III of the charge sheet were adduced by the presenting officer through prosecution witnesses who marked them Exhibits as under :-
Exhibit Ka-1 W/S dated 18.07.98 of Shri Vijay Singh, the charged official Exhibit Ka-2 W/S dated 28.12.98 of Shri Vijayant Vikram Singh the Then LRPA Agra Fort HO.
Exhibit Ka-3 W/S dated 07.07.98 of Shri Prabhu Dayal APM Agra Fort HO Exhibit Ka-4 W/S dated 18.07.98 of Shri Data Ram Postman Beat No.29/79 Agra Fort HO.
Exhibit Ka-5 W/S dated 28.07.98 of Shri Data Ram Postman Beat No.29/79 Agra Fort HO.
Exhibit Ka-6 SSPOs Agra letter No.F-3/1/98-99 dated 22.12.98 A/T SSPOs Panaji Dn. Panaji regarding verification of Panaji HO MO No.9472 dated 06.06.98 for Rs.20000/-.
Exhibit Ka-7 SSPOs Agra letter No.F-3/1/98-99 dated 20.07.98 A/T SSPOs Ahmadabad Exhibit Ka-8 SSPOs Agra letter No.F-3/1/98-99 dated 20.07.98 A/T SSPOs Dehradun regarding verification of MO No.1879 for Rs.21000- Exhibit-9 SSPOs Agra letter No.F-3/1/98-99 dated 20.07.98 A/T PPM Calcutta regarding verification of MO No.2611 for Rs.29000- Exhibit Ka-10 SSPOs Agra letter No.F-3/1/98-99 dated 24.09.98 A/T SSPOs Nagpur regarding verification of MO No.1829 for Rs.30000- Exhibit Ka-11 SSPOs Goa Dn. Mapusa letter No.F-2/Misc/98 dated 24.12.98 Exhibit Ka-12 SSPOs Jabalpur letter No.C-1/Misc/Enquiry/99 dated 20.07.98 Exhibit Ka-13 Chief Postmaster Ahmadabad letter No.CRP/Misc/98- 99 dated 07.08.98 Exhibit Ka-14 Sr. PM Dehradun letter No.CR/LMO-131/98-99 dated 07.11.98.
Exhibit Ka-15 Director GPO Calcutta letter No.MO/84/98-99 dated 10.11.98 Exhibit Ka-16 SPM Nagpur (MO issue) HSG-II letter No.78/98-
99/APM MO Issue dated 06.10.98 Exhibit Ka-17 Asstt. General Managr (Ad,) O/O GMTD/CTO Agra letter No.ST-1/Genl/Staff/31 dated 20.07.98 Exhibit Ka-18 Sr. PM Saharanpur letter No.CR-8/MO-41/98 dated 03.09.98 Exhibit Ka-19 Attendance register of treasury branch Agra Fort HO for the period from 01.06.98 to 07.07.98 Exhibit Ka-20 Agra For HO Summery for the period for 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 Exhibit Ka-21 W/S dated 17.02.99 of Shri Prabhu Dayal APM Agra Fort HO Exhibit Ka-22 Panji MO No.9472 dated 06.06.98 for Rs.20000-P/T Shri R.H.Meena O/O DET Tax Bhawan Agra Exhibit Ka-23 Jabalpur MO No.2998 dated 03.06.98 for Rs.20000- P/T Shri R.C. Saxena O/o DET Tax Bhawan Agra. Exhibit Ka-24 Jabalpur MO No2529 dated 03.06.98 for Rs.20000- P/T Shri B.C. Dayal O/O DET Tax Bhawan Agra Exhibit Ka-25. Agra Fort HO MO compilation for the period 01.06.98 to 06.07.98.
14 OA 3718/2016Exhibit Ka-26/1 Agra Fort HO MO paid list dated 12.6.98.
Exhibit Ka-26/2 Agra Fort HO MO paid list dated 01.07.98.
Exhibit Ka-26/3 Agra Fort HO MO paid list dated 04.07.98. Exhibit Ka-27 Hand to hand cash receipt book of Head Treasurer-1 Agra Fort HO forf thed dates 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and 04.07.98.
Exhibit Ka-28 SSPOs Agra letter No. F-3/1/98-99 dated 30.07.98 A/T Director Telecom Project, Tax Bhawan Agra regarding confirmation of names of official working in his office namely:-
1. Shri R.H.Meena payee of MO Exh.Ka-22
2. Shri R.C.Saxena payee of MO Exh Ka-23
3. Shri B.C.Dayal payee of MO Exh Ka-24.
Exhibit Ka-29 Hand to hand cash receipt book of ATR III Agra Fort HO (Charged official) for the period from 22.05.98 to 07.07.98.
Exhibit Ka-30 Head Treasurer cash book (HTR-1) Agra Fort HO for the period from 19.05.98 to 17.-07.98 showing dates 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and 04.07.98.
Exhibit Ka-31 Postman's book (MS-27) Agra Fort HO for following beat No and dates:-
Beat No. Dates
51 01.07.98
52 04.07.98
53 04.07.98
54 01.07.98, 04.07.98
55 04.07.98
56 01.07.98, 04.07.98
57 01.07.98, 04.07.98
58 04.07.98
60 01.07.98, 04.07.98
61 01.07.98
62 01.07.98
63 01.07.98, 04.07.98
64 01.07.98, 04.07.98
65 01.07.98
66 01.07.98, 04.07.98
67 01.07.98, 04.07.98
68 01.07.98, 04.07.98
69 01.07.98, 04.07.98
70 01.07.98, 04.07.98
72 01.07.98
73 01.07.98, 04.07.98
74 01.07.98, 04.07.98
75 01.07.98, 04.07.98
76 04.07.98
77 01.07.98, 04.07.98
78 01.07.98, 04.07.98
79 01.07.98, 04.07.98
80 01.07.98
Exhibit Ka-32 SSPOs Agra letter No. F-3/1/98-99 dated 20.07.98
A/T SSPOs Saharanpur regarding verification of Saharanpur MO No 858 for Rs.50000-paid on 01.07.98 Exhibit Ka-33 SSPOs Agra letter No. F-3/1/98-99 dated 20.07.98 A/T SSPOs Jabalpur regarding verification of Jabalpur MO No 2978 for Rs.27000-paid on 22.06.98 15 OA 3718/2016
8. The gist of the deposition of prosecution witnesses in the enquiry is as under:-
PW-1 Shri N.R.Sharma Retired Dy.SPOs Agra:-
He deposed that during the year 1996 to 1998, while holding the post of Dy.SPOs Agra, he has Incharge of the squad constituted to investigate into the money order fraud case of Agra Fort HO. The enquiry into the forged payment of money orders at Agra Fort HO was got conducted by him through Shri Babu Lal ASPOs and Shri R.N.Yadav SDI(P) in his supervision. The W/S dated 18.07.98 of Shri Vijay Singh C.O was recorded in his presence of Shri Babu Lal, the W/S dated 28.12.98 of Shri Vijayant Vikram Singh MO Paid PA, the W/S dated 07.07.98 of Shri Prabhu Dayal APM Agra Fort HO were recorded in the presence of Shri Babu Lal and Shri R.N.Yadfav and the W/S dated 18.07.98 and 28.07.98 of Shri Dada Ram postman were recorded in the presence of Shri Babu Lal. These written statements are marked as Ex Ka-1,Ka-2, Ka-3, Ka-4 and Ka-5 respectively.
No cross examination by the CO PW-2 Shri Rajesh Kumar Paliwal AAO (BD & DDA) Circle Office Lucknow:-
He stated that while working as OA Fraud Branch of the office of SSPOs Agra, he wrote the following letters and were got signed by the officers noted therein. These letters are marked as Exhibits Ka-6 to Ka-10 as under:
Sl.No. Letter No. Dated Signed by Exhibit No. 1 F-3/1/98-99 22.12.98 R.N.Sharma Exhibit Ka-6
2. F-3/1/98-99 20.07.98 Ambesh Upamanyu Exhibit Ka-7
3. F-3/1/98-99 20.07.98 Ambesh Upamanyu Exhibit Ka-8
4. F-3/1/98-99 20.07.98 Ambesh Upamanyu Exhibit Ka-9
5. F-3/1/98-99 20.07.98 Ambesh Upamanyu Exhibit Ka-10 Besides above the following letters were received by him duly entered in the register of receipt from the offices noted against each and marked as Exhibits Ka- 11 to Ka-18.16 OA 3718/2016
Sl. Letter Dated Sender Exhibit No No. No. 1. F-2/Misc/98 24.12.98 SSPOs Goa Dn.Goa Exhibit Ka-11 2. C-1/Misc/Inquiry/98 20.7.98 SSPOs Jabalpur Exhibit Ka-12 3. CRF/Misc/98-99 07.08.98 CPM Ahmababad Exhibit Ka-13 4. CR/LMO-131/98-99 07.11.98 Sr.PM Dehradun Exhibit Ka-14 5. MO-1/84/98-99 10.11.98 Director Calcutta GPO Exh Ka- 15 6. 78/98-99/APM MO 06.10.98 APM MO Nagpur GPO Exh Ka -16 7. ST-1/Genl/Staff/31 20.7.98 AGM O/O CTO Agra Exh Ka-17 8. CR-8/MO-41/98 03.9.98 Sr PM Saharanpur Exh Ka-18
During cross-examination, he replied the query raised by the CO/DA as to authenticity and genuineness of the documents Ex.Ka-11 to Ka-18 stating tat these documents contain the reference of letters written by the office of SSPOs Agra and were received through DRC branch of the office.
PW-3 Shri P.N.Sharma Retd. Dy. Postmaster Agra HPO:-
He worked as Postmaster Agra Fort HO during the year 1995 to 1999. He added in his deposition dated 13.02.2012 that attendance register of treasury branch relates to his office for the period of 01.06.1998 to 07.07.98 and marked it Exhibit Ka-19 Agra Fort HO summery for the dates 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 bears his signature and it was marked as Exh Ka-20.
No cross examination by the C.O. PW-4 Shri Prabhu Dayal Retd. APM Agra Agra Fort HO:-
He worked as Asstt. Postmaster Agra Fort HO for 10 to 12 months prior to his suspension in July-1998.
During this period MO paid branch, Registration & Parcel branches of Agra Fort HO-3 and Belanganj Sub Office Agra-4 were under his supervision. In the course of his deposition dated 19.04.2012 he confirmed his previous written statement dated 17.02.1999 and marked it as Exh Ka-21, he also added that paid vouchers of MO No. 9472 dated 06.06.1998 for Rs.20000 and MO No. 2948 dated 03.06.98 for Rs.20000 and MO No. 2529 dated 03.06.98 for Rs.20000 do not bear his signature. There is impression of stamp of Agra Fort HO on these paid 17 OA 3718/2016 vouchers. The paid MO vouchers were marked as Exh Ka-22, Ka-23 and Exh-24respectively by him. The MO paid compilation of Agra Fort HO for the period 01.06.98 to 06.07.98 marked as Exh Ka-25 also does not bear his signature. He also confirmed the MO paid lists dated 12.06.1998, 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 bearing oblong stamp of Agra Fort HO and marked them as Exh Ka-26/1, Ka-26/2 and Ka-26/3 respectively.
During cross examination he added that the amount of memos issued for the above cited dates is not in his mind.
PW-5 Shri Babu Lal Retd. SSPOs Jhansi:
While holding the post of Asstt. Supdt (Hq) he was directed by the SSPOs Agra to investigate into the MO fraud case of Agra Fort HO with the assistance of other sub Divisional Inspectors. The written statement dated 18.07.98 Exh Ka-1 was offered by Shri Vijay Singh PA Agra Fort HO the C.O in his presence. Likewise written statements Exh Ka-2, Exh Ka-3, Exh Ka-21, Exh Ka-4 and Exh Ka-5 were also offered by the concerned officials voluntarily in the inquiry. He also confirmed the following documents and marked them Exhibits shown against them:-
Exh Ka-27 Agra Fort HO Head Treasurer hand to hand It was preserved in original cash receipt book for dated 12.06.98, during investigation. 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 Exh Ka-28 SSPOs Agra letter No. F-3/1/98-99 dated It bears signature of Shri 20.07.98 A/T the director Telecom Nand Ram Dy.SPOs Agra Project Tax Bhawan Agra-3 Exh Ka-29 Asstt. Treasurer-III Agra Fort HO hand to It was also preserved hand cash receipt book for the date during investigation. 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 Exh Ka-30 Agra Fort HO Head Treasurer cash book It bears signature of Shri for the date 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and P.N.Sharma the then 04.07.98 Postmaster Agra Fort HO.
Exh Ka-31 Postmen's book (MS-27) in respect of beat These were also preserved No.51 to 80 for the respective dates as by PW-5 shown in detail in para 7.2 above.
He further added that ATR-III (the C.0) received advance Rs.134297/- on 12.6.98 as shown in Exh Ka- 29 from head treasurer vide Exh Ka-27 under receipt and out of above amount, a sum of Rs.127953was shown in Exh Ka - 29 to have been given for 18 OA 3718/2016 disbursement of money orders on the date by the postman Agra Fort HO beat No. 51 to 80 as per memo of MO payment but the total amount of money orders paid on 12.06.98 was found to have been shown as Rs.160613 in Agra Fort HO compilation Exh Ka-25 and Agra Fort HO summery Exh Ka-20. In the MO paid journal of Agra Fort HO-3 dated 12.06.98 Exh Ka-26/1 the following money orders are entered as disbursed:-
Exh Ka-22 Panji MO No. 9472 dated 06.06.98 for Rs.20000/- = Exh Ka-26/1 Page-1 Exh Ka-23 Jabalpur MO No 2978 dated 03.06.98 for Rs.20000 =Exh Ka-26/1 Page-II Exh.Ka-24 Jabalpur MO no. 2529 dated 03.06.98 for Rs.20000 = Exh Ka-26/1 Page-III.
The genuineness of issue of these money orders was also not found to have been confirmed by their office of issue/administrative offices and all the above money orders were found forged/bogus as it is established from Exh Ka-11 in r/o MO Exh Ka-22. Besides above, the persons as shown payees in the money orders Exh Ka-22, Ka-23 and Ka-24 were also not found in the concerned office as it is also established from Exh Ka-17.
In reply to the query raised by the C.O/D.A as to his nexus with the said forged payment of money orders Exh Ka-22, Ka-23 and Ka-24, he stated that the amount worth Rs.127853 as shown in Exh Ka-29 against memo to have been given for disbursement of money orders by Postman staff on 12.06.98 was inclusive of aggregate amount of forged MOs Ka-22, Ka-23 and Ka- 24 and the charged official was fully aware of this fact because the amount of money order in question was shown in the total amount of MOs paid by postman staff, while the money order in question were not disbursed by the Postman. On the other hand these money orders have been included in MO paid journal dated 12.06.98 Exh Ka-26/1.
As regards other query of the giving amount of money order to the postman as per register of MOs received for payment, he replied that it can not be 19 OA 3718/2016 affirmed in the absence of MO-3 in the inquiry. In reply to third query he added that amount worth Rs.127853.00 as shown in head treasurer cash book (Exh.Ka-30) includes the amount of money orders in question.
PW-6 Shri R.N.Yadav ASRM 'G' Dn. Gorakhpur:-
While holding the post of SDI (P) East Agra he rendered assistance to Shri Babu Lal the then ASPOs (HQ) Agra into the investigation of bogus payment of money orders at Agra Fort HO. He deposed that two SSPOs Agra letters dated 20.07.98 addressed to SSPOs Saharanpur and Jabalpur were written by him in his manuscript and got signed by Shri Ambesg Upmanyu for verification of genuineness of issue of money orders disbursed at Agra Fort HO. These both letters were marked as Exh Ka-32 and Exh Ka-33. He added further that Exh Ka-2, Ka-3 and Exh Ka-21 are the written statements of the concerned officials and were offered by them in my joint presence with Shri Babu Lal. The enquiry report was submitted by Shri Baby Lal. As for gist of the enquiry he also added that the amount shown by the charged official in the documents was not found to have been given to the postman staff for disbursement of money orders.
During cross examination, while taking resort of procedural rule about handing over the amount to postman staff for payment of money order by the Asstt. Treasurer according to the register of money order received for payment (MO-3), the C.O raised query as to how it can be said so much amount was not given. The Prosecution witness replied that concerned document is not available before him. However, the authenticity of his version can be tested from the exhibits on record of the enquiry.
PW-7 Shri Badra Prasad pA Agra HO-1:-
In his deposition dated 07.05.2012, he stated that he had worked at Agra Fort HO during the year 2017 and 1998 but exact date is not in his mind. He added that hand to hand receipt book of Head Treasurer (ATR-
1)Agra Fort HO Exh Ka-27 for the dates 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 is not in his hand writing. Head Treasurer (ATR 1) cash book Exh Ka-30 for the date 20 OA 3718/2016 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and 01.07.98 is neither written in his hand writing nor filled in by him but it contains his signature on 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 because the stamp balances is written in it in his hand writing. It also contains signature of Shri Santosh Kumar and Shri P.N.Sharma Postmaster Agra Fort HO and probably that of Shri Bal Mukund besides him. Head Treasurer/ATR-1 used to supply cash to all Asstt. Treasurers according to their need and take returns of residuary cash in the evening.
No cross examination by CO/DA.
PW-8 Shri Data Ram Retired Postman Agra Fort HO:
In his deposition dated 07.05.12 in the oral enquiry, he stated that he had worked as Postman Agra Fort HO during the year 1978 to 2004 in beat No. 29/79. He further added that previous written statements dated 19.07.98 and 28.07.98 Exh Ka-4 and Exh Ka-5 were offered by him under his signature in the presence of Shri Babul Lal ASPOs (HQ) Agra. In the month of June-98, he worked in Registration and MO set. The MO paid vouchers Exh Ka-22, Exh Ka-23 and Exh Ka-24 were not paid by him and these vouchers do not bear his signature in token of having paid by him somebody else has written his name on these money order paid vouchers. In the month of July-98, he delivered only paid and ordinary articles as such postman book (MS-27) of beat No. 79 for dates 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 (Exh Ka-31) is not maintained in his hand writing. Since the Postman book for 12.06.98 is not before him as such it can be said whether the MO paid vouchers Exh Ka-22,Exh Ka-23 and Exh Ka-24 have entry it or not.
In reply to query of CO, he stated that he uded tro give receipt in MO-3 register for money order but MO-3 register was not shown to him during investigation. Hence he is unable to say that how money orders and how much amount was given to him on 12.06.98 for payment.
9. The charged official was given full opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witnesses. On closure of prosecution side, the charged official submitted his defence statement on 21.05.2012 in which he denied 21 OA 3718/2016 the charges made out against him vide SSPOs Agra Memo No.F-3 /1/98-99 /Disc /Vijay Singh dated 02.01.2008 on the plea that the article of charges is baseless and untrue in the absence of conclusive evidence.
Since the charged official did not declare the name of any defence witness in his application dated 26.09.2011 nor he indented to adduce him or any defence witnesses to be examined on his behalf in the enquiry hence he offered himself for general examination with the consent of his defence assistant. He was therefore examined generally by the undersigned on 21.05.2012. On the close of defence side, the enquiry proceedings were closed with the direction to the Presenting officer and charged official to submit their written briefs as mentioned in the order sheet No.10 dated 21.05.2012.
10. The presenting Officer has submitted his Brief on 24.01.2015 with the observations that as per depositions of the prosecution witness and documentary evidence Exh Ka-1 to Exh Ka-33 adduced during the enquiry the charges levelled against the charged official mentioned in the article of charge I, II and III stands fully proved. While on the other hand the charge official has the view vide his defence brief dated 09.02.2015 that the Rules mentioned in the article of charge I, II and III are not applicable to him hence he has not violated Rule-27(2), 33(7) of Postal Manual Vol VI part- III and also not violated Rule 3 (i), (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules-1964.
11. Points of consideration On careful examination of the article of charges, statement of imputation of misbehaviour against the charged official, deposition of the prosecution witnesses, documentary evidence adduced in the enquiry, defence statement and of the C.O. and his general examination written briefs of prosecution and defence sides the following points emerged for consideration:-
22 OA 3718/20161. While discharging the duties of Asstt. Treasurer-III Agra Fort HO on 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and 04.07.98, whether or not the charged official received a huge amount of cash from head treasurer-I under receipt and handed over a considerable amount out of it to all postman for effecting payment of money orders as per rules enjoined in Financial Hand Book (Part-I and Part-II) and Postal Manual Volume-VI part-II by taking aquittance of MO paid PA in his cash book or hand to hand cash receipt book for the total amount given to all Postman at one time.
2. Whether non citation of codified rules of Financial Hand Book to be followed by the Treasurer in connection with payment of money orders by the Postmen or incorrect citation of rules of Postal Manual Volume-VI Part-II in the charge sheet served upon C.O. has vitiated the gravity of his misconduct.
3. Whether non supply of requisitioned additional documents in the enquiry by the disciplinary authority amount to denial of reasonable opportunity to the C.O. attracting provisions of the article-311 (2) of the constitution of India.
4. Whether the prosecution failed to adduce material witness and material documentary evidence to substantiate the allegations set out against the C.O.
5. Whether or not, the W/S dated 28.12.98 Exh Ka-2 of Shir Vijayant Vikram Sngh the then MO paid PA Agra Fort HO and other correspondence letters Exh Ka-7 to Exh Ka-187 can be taken for consideration in the enquiry for want of confirmation by appearance in person making them and senders of the official letter respectively.
12. An objective analysis and assessment of evidence adduced in the enquiry from both sides in respect of each point set out for consideration:-
23 OA 3718/201612.1 During preliminary fact finding enquiry it come to light that twenty four vouchers of High value money orders were found missing at the time of preparation of return of MO paid compilation on 07.07.98 as it is obvious from the written statement dated 07.07.98 Exh Ka-3 of Shri Prabhu Dayal the then APM MO paid Branch Agra Fort HO. Subsequently the number of missing money orders raised from 24 to 70 which were stated to have been paid fraudulently by Shri Vijayant Vikram Singh MO paid PA in collusion with Shri Vijay Singh Asstt.
Treasurer-III on different dates. The forged High Value money orders disbursed on 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 as per MO paid journals of these fates were never received through HVMO lists as it is evident from last para of W/S dated 12.02.99 Exh Ka-21 of Shri Prabhu Dayal PW-4. The paid vouchers of MO Exh Ka-22, Exh Ka-23 and Exh Ka-24 worth Rs.20000 as shown paid on 12.06.98 in MO paid journal Exxh Ka 26/1 are on record while paid vouchers of MO paid on 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 as per MO paid journal Exh Ka-26/2 and Exh Ka 26/3 are missing from the record as discussed above.
12.2 The contention of the C.O. is that paid vouchers of money orders No.8586 for Rs.50000 shown issued from Saharanpur, MO No.2994 for Rs.30000 shown issued from Ahemdabad as Exhibited paid in MO paid journal Exh Ka 26/2 dated 01.07.98, and these of MO No.1829 for Rs.30000 shown issued from Nagpur, MO No.1829 for Rs.21000 shown issued from Dehradun and MO No.2611 for Rs.29000 shown issued from Calcutta as Exhibited in MO paid journal dated 04.07.98 Exhibits Ka 26/3 were not supplied to him as requisioned additional documents vide his application dated 26.09.2011 at serial No.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
12.2 (i) The MO paid journals Exh Ka-26/2 and exh Ka- 26/3 for the dates 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 respectively are the material evidence and total amount of all paid money orders shown in these documents has been incorporated in the accounts of Agra Fort. HO vide HO summery Exh Ka-20 treasurer cash book of head treasurer Exh Ka-30, MO paid compilation Exh Ka-25 of these dates. The number and amount of each money order in question paid on 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 included in MO paid journals of these dates i.e. Exh ka 26/1, Ka-26/2 and Ka-26/3. The aggregate 24 OA 3718/2016 amount of all money orders paid on these dates was given by the charged official to all postmen as per memo given by MO paid assistant to him as exhibited in hand to hand cash receipt book of the C.O. Exh Ka-29 in which the initial of MO paid Asstt. Shri Vijayant Vikram Singh was not taken by the C.O. against the total amount given to all Postmen on 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 as shown in the memo. The C.O. clarified in his general examination before the undersigned on 21.05.2012 that the receipt for the amount given to all Postmen was taken in the register of money orders received for payment (MO-3) and the total of amount of all money orders as shown in MO-3 register and memo given by MO paid PA was checked by him in a cursory sight. The memo as shown in Exh Ka-29 of C.O. is not a prescribed document in the operative rules relating to the payment of money orders and register of MOs received for payment was not produced by the prosecution in the enquiry being not available. The Register of money orders received for payment (MO-3) is maintained by the MO paid PA not by the C.O. However the plea taken by the C.O. in this regard categorically reflects that the money orders in question as shown in MO paid journals Exh Ka-26/1, Ka26/2 and Ka-26/3 were entered in the register of money orders received for payment (MO-3) for which the amount was given to all postmen for payment of money orders on the above dates by him.
12.2(ii). The allegation of the prosecution against the C.O. is that money orders paid on 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 as shown in MO paid journals were high value money orders, hence the amount for payment of these money orders could not be given to a single Postmen beyond the prescribed limit. Shri Data Ram the then Postman of Beat No.79 Agra Fort HO (PW-8) while confirming his previous written statements Exh Ka- 4 and Exh ka-5, stated that MO Exh Ka-22, Ka-23 and Ka-24 for Rs.20000 each had not been paid by him on 12.06.98 nor these paid vouchers bear his signature in token of having been paid by him. He added that some body else has written his name on these paid MO vouchers. He also confirmed that there are no such payees in the office of SDE or DET Tax Bhawan Agra as 25 OA 3718/2016 named in these money orders. Shri Prabhu Dayal the then APM MO paid Branch (PW-4) also clarified in his previous W/S exh Ka-3 and Ka-21 that MO Exh Ka-22, Ka-23 and Ka-24 were not received in his office through High Value MO lists and the MO paid vouchers of these MOs do not bear his initial in token of having compared them with the HVMO list on 10.06.98 as appearing on them because these money orders also do not bear the signature of the sender and designation stamp seal impression on them. He also stated that Jabalpur MO No.2978 dated 03.06.98 for Rs.20000 Exh Ka-23 does not bear the round MO stamp of Agra Fort HO as a symbol of authentication for payment by him nor it bears the oblong stamp of Agra Fort HO as a mark of its payment on 12.06.98. In view of this fact it is also obvious that even the concerned postman cannot accept the MO form Exh Ka-23 for making payment for want of impression of round MO stamp as a mark of its authorization. Hence it is evident that money orders Exh Ka-22, Ka-23 and Ka-24 for total amount of Rs.60000 were not given to Shri Data Ram (PW-4) Postman Beat No.79 on 12.06.98 for payment by the MO paid asstt. And these money orders were not entered in the register (MO-3) for the purpose. On the other hand, the contention of the charged official is that a lump sum worth Rs.127853 was given by him to all postmen on 12.06.98 after taking receipt in the register MO-3 after comparing and checking the total casting a cursory sight on the amount written in the memo including the amount of Exh Ka-22, Ka-23 and Ka-24 given by MO paid Asstt. As exhibited in the Hand to hand cash receipt book of the C.O. Exhibit Ka-29 against which the signature of MO paid assistant were not taken by the C.O. while a sum of Rs.134297 were received by the C.O. giving aquittance under his initial in the hand to hand cash receipt book of Head Treasurer on 12.06.98 Exh Ka-27. These are the material evidence. The amount worth Rs.127853 shown in Exh Ka-29 has been taken by the head Treasurer in Agra Fort HO Treasury cash book Exh Ka-20 on 12.06.98 as total amount paid money orders at Agra Fort HO Agra-3. The contention of the C.O. is that the memo dated 12.06.98 given by MO paid PA was bearing the signature of MO paid Asstt. And APM MO paid but it does not appears convincing in view of deposition of Shri Prabhu Dayal APM (PW-4) An examination of hand to hand cash receipt book of the 26 OA 3718/2016 C.O. Exh Ka-29 divulges that amount taken by the C.O. as advance on 12.06.98 from Head Treasurer vide its Hand to Hand cash book Exh Ka-27 was adjusted as under :-
(A) Exh Ka-27 & Ka- Amount of cash received from Head Rs.134297 29 Treasurer (B) Exh Ka-29 Amount in lump sum given to all Postmen 127853 as per memo received by him from MO Paid PA (C) Exh Ka-29 Amount returned by Postmen for money 6986 orders (D) Net amount remains with Postman for 120867 disbursement of MO (B-C) (E) Exh Ka-29 Cash returned by the C.O. to Head Rs.6444 Treasurer (A-B) (F) Add (C+D+E)=A Rs.134297 It is surprising that an amount of Rs.1320 was received from the Postman Beat No.80 on account unpaid money order in its Exh Ka-29 and the same amount was also shown by the Head Treasurer in its Head Treasurer cash book Exh Ka-30 against postman Beat No.80 but the C.O. has also shown this amount to have been included with residuary amount Rs.6444 (A-B) and handed over total amount Rs.7764 (6444+1320) to Shri Badri Prasad Assistant Treasurer under receipt.
In view of above discussion, it is clear that amount of Rs.60000 for above forged money orders was included in the amount given to the all Postmen on 12.06.98 as shown at 'B' above. Accordingly Panji MO No.9472 for Rs.20000 and Jabalpur MO No.2529 and MO No.2978 for Rs.20000 each were shown as paid by MO paid Asstt. In MO paid journal Exh Ka-26/1.
12.2 (iii) The attendance register of Treasury Branch Agra Fort HO Exh Ka-19 shows the presence of official working on the following dates :-
Designation 12.06.98 01.07.98 04.07.98 APM Try. Shri Balmukund Shri Balmukund Shri Balmukund Head Tr. Shri Santosh Kumar Shri Badri Prasad Shri Badri Prasad Sharma Astt. Tr. Shri Badri Prasad Shri Har Narayan Shri Har Narayan Gupta Gupta Astt. Tr. Shri Om Prakash Shri Santosh Kumar Shri Santosh Kumar Ambesg Sharma Sharma Astt. Tr. Shri Vijay Singh Rajput Shri Vijay Singh Rajput Shri Vijay Singh Rajput In view of above facts, the deposition of Shri Badri Prasad PW-7 to the effect that he dod not work as Head Treasurer on 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 is not convincing. On the other hand he received cash under 27 OA 3718/2016 receipt in the Hand to Hand cash receipt book Exh Ka- 27 of the C.O. on 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 on account of unpaid money orders returned by Postmen along with cash of unpaid MOs delivered by them and the same amount has been shown in the Head Treasurer cash book Exh Ka-30 accordingly.
12.2 (iv). Shri Data Ram (PW-8) also deposed that he delivered only paid and ordinary articles in the month of July-98 as such the Postman book (MS-27) Exh-31 for the dates 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 has not been written in his hand writing. In view of the assertion, it is quite obvious that he did not work in Beat No.79 on these dates and money orders were not disbursed by him. On the other hand the contention of the C.O. is that cash was given by him to all Postmen of Beat No.51 to 80 under receipt in the register (MO-3) in accordance with the amount shown in the memo given by the MO paid Asstt. Duly signed by him and APM MO paid on these dates. The documents adduced by the Presenting Officer on behalf of the disciplinary authority revealed the cash transaction by the C.O. with head treasurer, Asstt. Treasurer and Postmen staff on these as under:-
01.07.98 Sl.No. Exhibit (A) Ka-27 Received advance from Head Treasurer Rs.152118 (B) Ka-29 As per memo cash given to all Postmen Rs.150243 (C) Ka-29 & Cash returned by Postmen Rs.29505 Ka-31 (D) Net amount remains with Postmen Rs.120738 (E) Ka-29 Cash returned by the C.O. to head Rs.1875 treasurer as difference of (A) and (B) (F) Add C+D+E (This is equivalent to A) Rs.152118 (G) Ka-31 As per Postmen book (MS-27) total Rs.70243 amount given to all Postmen Out of which cash of unpaid money order Rs.29505 returned The net amount of total money order Rs.40738 paid (H) The amount not given to all Postmen on Rs.80000 01.07.98 deduct net amount of G from D i.e.120738.40738= This clearly show that amount worth Rs.80000 was already include in the amount given Postmen as shown at 'B' 28 OA 3718/2016 (I) Exh Ka- The amount worth Rs.80000 is equal to 26/2 the total amount of following alleged money orders which were shown to have been paid on 01.07.98 in MO paid journal Rs.80000 Exh Ka-26/2.
LKO Audit Saharanpur MO No.8586=Rs.50000 Nagpur Ahmadabad MO No.2994 =Rs.30000 Audit These money orders do not find place in Postman Book of Beat No. 79 Exh Ka-31.
Now it is evident that these money orders were not entered in the register of money orders received for payment (MO-3) and could not be given to a single postman being beyond prescribed limit. The amount workt Rs.150243 was not got signed knowingly by the C.O. in his hand to hand cash receipt book Exh Ka-29 and sum of Rs.80000 were given direct to the MO paid PA for effecting payment of alleged money orders which were never received in Agra Fort HO with HVMO list as W/S dated 17.02.98 of Shri Prabhu Dayal APM (PW-4). It is also categorically explicit that the C.O. was acting in collusion with the MO paid assistant and the MOs were subsequently were found bogus in view of further investigation vide Exh Ka-13 and Exh Ka-18.
04.07.98 Sl No. Exhibit (A) Ka-27 Received advance from head Rs.128294 Treasurer (B) Ka-29 As per memo cash given to all Rs.119810 Postmen (C) Ka-29 & Ka- Cash of unpaid MOs returned by Rs.7942 31 Postmen (D) Net amount remains with Postmen Rs.111868 (E) Ka-29 Cash returned by the C.O. to head Rs.8484 treasurer as difference of (A) and (B) (F) Add C+D+E (This is equivalent to Rs.128294 A) 29 OA 3718/2016 (G) Ka-31 As per Postmen book (MS-27) total Rs.39810 amount given to all Postmen Out of which cash of unpaid money Rs.7942 order returned The net amount of total money Rs.31868 order paid (H) The amount not given to all Rs.80000 Postmen on 04.07.98 deduct net amount of G from D i.e.111868-
Rs.31868=
This clearly show that amount
worth Rs.80000 was already
included in the amount given
Postmen as shown at 'B'
(I) Exh The amount worth Rs.80000 is
Ka- equal to the total amount of
26/3 following alleged money orders
which were shown to have been
paid on 04.07.98 in MO paid journal
Exh Ka-26/3. Rs.80000
Nagpur MO No.1827 for Rs.30000
Dehradun MO No.1879 =Rs.21000
Calcutt MO No.2611 for Rs.29000=
These money orders did not find
place in Postman book of Beat
No.79 Exh Ka-31
Now it is evident that these money orders were not entered in the register of money orders received for payment (MO-3) and could not be given to a single postmen being beyond prescribed limit. The amount worth Rs.119810 was not got signed knowingly by the C.O. in his hand to hand cash receipt book Exh Ka-29 and sum of Rs.80000 was given to the MO paid PA direct for effecting payment of alleged money orders which were never received in Agra Fort HO with HVMO lists as per W/S dated 17.02.99 of Shri Prabhu Dayal APM (PW-4). Subsequently these money orders were found bogus in view of further investigation vide Exh Ka-16, Ka-14 and Ka-15. Thus it is categorically explicit that the C.O. was acting in collusion of MO paid Assistant and after checking of money 30 OA 3718/2016 orders payment of the day to day by Shri Prabhu Dayal APM (MO Paid), these above cited money orders were incorporated in the MO paid journal dated 04.07.98 Exh Ka-26/3 at the top above serial No.1 in each separate there pages of it by making manipulation in total number of money order paid and their aggregate amount with a view to accommodate the amount worth Rs.80000 as under (Exh Ka-26/3) :-
Nagpur Page-I Nagpur MO No.1829 for
Audit Rs.30000
Total No of MOs was raised
from 15 to 16
Total amount of payment
raised from Rs.1713 to
Rs.31713
LKO Audit Page-II Dehradun MO No.1879 for
Rs.21000
Total No. of MOs was raised
from 11 to 12
Total amount of payment
raised from Rs.2660 to
Rs.23660
Calcutta Page-III Calcutta MO No.2611 for
Audit Rs.29000
Total No. of MOs was raised
from 14 to 15
Total amount of payment
raised from Rs.6818 to
Rs.35618
At the outset of preliminary investigation on 07.07.98, as per W/S dated 07.07.98 Exh Ka-3 of Shri Prabhu Dayal APM MO paid Branch Agra Fort HO-3, it has come to light that there were 24 vouchers of paid money orders were missing and Shri Vijayant Vikram Singh MO paid PA had absconded from his duty before close of working hours and perusal of attendance register of treasury branch of Agra Fort HO for the month of June-98 and for a period from 01.07.98 to 07.07.98 Exh Ka-19 shows that the charged official has not affixed his signature in it on 07.07.98. In such circumstances, the preponderance of probability of the fact is that vouchers of forged/faked money orders paid on 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 along with register of money orders received for payment (MO-3), HVMO lists if any demanded by the C.O. vide his 31 OA 3718/2016 application dated 26.09.2011 at Sl. No.2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 and other related documents like Postman's book of beat No.79 dated 12.06.98 have been caused to disappear from office record by the MO paid Assistant with convenience of the C.O. as there was telephonic talk between them at night on 07.07.98 as it is clear from the W/S dated 18.07.96 (Exh Ka-
1) of the C.O. itself and the C.O. has not confuted this statement in the enquiry. The presenting officer has asserted in his written brief dated 27.01.2015 that the ample advance was drawn by the C.O. from treasury approximately to the amount shown in the memo given by MO paid Assistant by giving his acquittance in hand to hand cash receipt book of Head Treasurer Exh Ka-27 so as to facilitate the payment of forged money orders on the following dated in collusion with Mo paid Asstt. without taking his receipt in his hand to hand cash receipt book Exh Ka-29.
Date Advance taken Memo 12.06.98 Rs.134297- Rs.127853 01.07.98 Rs.152118 Rs.150243 04.07.98 Rs.128294 Rs.119810
12.3. The Charged official has advanced the plea of denial of reasonable opportunity due to non-supply of vouchers of money orders paid by MO paid Asstt. on 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 which were demanded by him vide his application dated 26.09.2011 at Sl. No.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and other document register of MOs received for payment MO-3 and HVMO list at Sl. No.7 & 8.
The documentary evidence produced by the P.O. shows that the money orders were not paid by the charged official on 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and 04.07.98. He simply made cash available to the MO paid Asstt. for affecting their payment on the strength of memo given by MO paid PA without taking his receipt in his hand to hand cash receipt book Exh Ka-29. The vouchers of paid money orders Exh Ka-22, Ka-23 and Ka-24 which are on record, could not help him to prove his innocence. In view of there appears no reason to believe that non supply of vouchers of MOs paid on other dates had adversely affected his defence. However, the register of money orders received for payment (MO-3) was essential document which could not be produced by the prosecution, but in view of assertion of Shri Prabhu Dayal APM (PW-4) to the effect that none of money order in question was received 32 OA 3718/2016 in his time through HVMO list. Therefore it appears no probability of their entry in the register (MO-3). Besides above, Shri Data Ram Postman Beat No.79 has also denied to have affect any money order on 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 while the cash was made available to all postmen as per memo which is also not a prescribed document in the procedural rules under Postal Manual Volume-VI part-II on the subject. Hence the plea taken by the C.O. is not convincing. The principal of reasonable opportunity as enshrined in the constitution is based on the principal of natural justice. Accordingly the C.O. has been given opportunity to be heard and to cross examine the prosecution documentary and oral evidence.
12.4. As per the article of the charges set out against the C.O., it is argued by him that violation of rules of Financial Hand Book has not been cited in it.
As an excuse taken by the C.O. indicates that he has a very imperfect notion of his duties as Asstt. Treasurer and a very unsatisfactory knowledge of the rules. It is the first and imperative duty of every officer before taking charge of an office to acquaint himself thoroughly with the routine work of the office in all its details for which induction training has already been imparted to the C.O. by the Department for smooth running of Postal operative business. In view of argument given by the C.O., the probability arises that the C.O. was quite conversant with rules as to his duties but these were discharged by him as discussed in preceding para. The C.O. has not observed the rules of financial propriety in respect of authorization of incurring expenditure from public fund as established in Rule-60 of FHB Volume-1 which explains that every public officer is expected to exercise the same vigilance in respect of expenditure incurred from public money as a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in respect of his own money and the expenditure should not be prima facie more than the occasion demand. The C.O. has not seen the entry of three High value money orders amounting to Rs. 60000-Exh Ka-22, Ka-23 and Ka-24. Two HVMOs amounting to Rs. 8000 and three HVMOs amounting to Rs.8000 each being above Rs. 20000- on 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 respectively in the register of money orders received for payment (MO-3) in a single beat No.79 beyond the prescribed limit of the postman vide Rule-26(1) of Postal Manual Volume-VI Part-II for which cash was given by 33 OA 3718/2016 the C.O to single postman after the total amount to be given at one time as per register MO-3 casting a cursory sight on it and comparing with that of memo given by the MO paid Asstt. as it is figuring in his hand to hand receipt book Exh Ka-29 on the above dates in violation of Rule-34 of F.H.B. Volume-II describing special procedure in respect of payment of money orders at Head Post Office.
Although, the provisions of Rule-34 of the F.H.B. Volume-II are similar to Rule-27 (2) and 37 (7) of Postal Manual Volume-VI Part-II but in the articles of charges these have cited of Postal Manual Volume-VI part-III. In view of foregoing facts, there appears no reason to believe that non- citation of Rules of FHB or wrong citation of rules of Postal Manuals would alleviate the gravity of misconduct attributed to the C.O. in the article of charges framed against him. The provisions of Rule:103 of FHB Volume-I clearly states that every Government servant is personally responsible for all Government money which passes through his hands and for prompt record of receipts and payments in the prescribed accounts as well as fro the correctness of the account in every respect. Besides the above Rule-30 of FHB Volume-II also describes the duties and responsibilities of Treasurer or Asstt. Treasurer. Hence the argument of non supply of Memo of Distribution of work (MDOW) to the C.O. appears to have no meaning.
12.5. The charged official also challenged that the W/S dated 28.12.98 of Shri Vijayant Vikram Singh the then MO paid PA Exh Ka-2 and other correspondence letters Exh Ka-7, Exh Ka- 18 cannot be taken into consideration against him for want of their confirmation in the enquiry.
The W/S dated 28.12.98 Exh Ka-2 of Shri Vijayant Vikram Singh was confirmed by Shri Babu Lal PW-5 and Shri R.N. Yadav PW-6. In this statement, the C.O. as well as Shri Prabhu Dayal APM PW-4 has been incriminated by stating that memo bearing his signature and that of APM was given to the C.O. for giving money for payment of money orders and the C.O. himself has taken plea to the effect in his defence time and again. As for other correspondence letters Exh Ka-7 to Ka-18 and Ka-32 to Ka-33 it is evident that Exh Ka-7 to Ka- 10 were written by Shri Rajesh Kumar Paliwal PW-2 and Ka- 32 by Shri R.N. Yadav PW-6 in further investigation in the official capacity and their replies were received through 34 OA 3718/2016 official letter Exh Ka-11 to Ka-18 and Ka-33 by PW-2 in which it was confirmed that none of the HVMO appearing in MO paid journals Exh Ka-26/1, Ka-26/2 and Ka 26/3 was found to have been issued from its alleged office of booking.
FINDING While winding up the enquiry, I have gone through the chargesheet, listed documents produced as exhibits by the prosecution, depositions of the prosecution witnesses defence representation of the C.O., written briefs of the presenting officer and the charged official in respect of each article of the charges and observed the position as under:-
Sl. Detail Article of Article of Article of Supported Exhibit No. Charge-I Charge-II Charge-III 12.06.98 01.07.98 04.07.98 A Advance Rs.134297 Rs.152118 Rs.128294 Exh Ka-27 received by C.O. Exh Ka-36 B Cash given by Rs.127853 Rs.150243 Rs.119810 Exh Ka-29 the C.O. to all Postmen for payment of MOs as per memo given by MO Paid PA/Register (MO-3) C Cash returned Rs.6986 Rs.29505 Rs.7942 Exh Ka 31 by postmen for unpaid MOs D Net amount Rs.120867 Rs.120738 Rs.111868 Exh Ka-29 remained with Postmen (B-C) E Residuary cas Rs.6444 Rs.1875 Rs.8484 Exh Ka-29 return by C.O. to Head Treasurer (A-B) F Total Rs.134297 Rs.152118 Rs.128294 Exh Ka-27 (C+D+E=A) G(i) Cash given to all Postman Rs.70243 Rs.39810 Exh Ka-31 Postmen as per book dated Postmen book 12.06.98 not beat No.51 to available but 80 amount of G(ii) Cash returned MO Exh Ka- Rs.29505 Rs.7942 Exh Ka-31 G(iii) Net Amount 22, Ka-23 Rs.40738 Rs.31868 Exh Ka-31 remained with and Ka-24 Postmen for Rs.20000 each is Rs.60000 35 OA 3718/2016 H Cash not given to Postmen Rs.60000 Rs.80000 Rs.80000 Exh Ka-31 for payment of MOs of MOs 9D-G(iii) but this amount was shown to have been included in teh amount at 'B' on the basis of memo given by MO paid Asstt.
I(i) Cash not given to the Exh Ka-26/1 Exh Ka- Exh Ka-26/3 Exh Ka Postmen was shown as in Panji MO 26/2 Nagpur MO 26/1, Ka- column 'H' was adjusted in No.9472 for Saharanpu No.1829 for 26/2 and MO paid journal for payment Rs.20000 r Rs.30000 Ka-26/3 of money orders Exh Ka- Jabalpur MO MO Dehradun 26/1, Ka-26/2 & Ka-26/3 by No.2529 for No.8586 MO No.1879 the MO paid Asstt. Rs.20000 & for for Rs.21000 Jabalpur MO Rs.50000 Calcutta MO No.2978 for Ahmedaba No.2611 for Rs.20000 d MO Rs.29000 Total No.2994 Total Rs.60000 for Rs.80000 vide Exh Ka- Rs.30000 22, Ka-23 & Total Ka-24. Rs.80000.
I(ii) Shri Prabhu Dayal (PW-4) W/S dated W/S dated W/S dated Exh Ka-21 denied receipt of these 17.02.99 Exh 17.02.99 17.02.99 Exh HVMO through HVMO list Ka-21 Exh Ka-21 Ka-21 I(iii) Shri Data Ram Postman Beat W/S W/S dated W/S dated Esh Ka-5 No.79 (PW-8) denied payment dated 28.07.98 28.07.98 Exh of these money orders on 28.07.98 Exh Ka-5 Ka-5 No Exh Ka-31 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and Exh Ka-5 No mention of 04.07.98 Postman mention of money book money orders in MS-27 of orders in Postman beat Postman book of beat No.79 book of No.79 Exh caused beat Ka-31 being to No.79 Exh excess disappea Ka-31 beyond r. being prescribed Amount excess limit of single of MOs beyond Postman.
being prescribed
HVMO limit of
exceedin single
g the Postman
prescribe
d limit
of single
Postman
and
cannot
be given
to
payment
I(iv) The money orders shown paid Correspondence letters Exh Ka-6 to The
as above were found faked in Ka-18 by PW-2 and Exh Ka-32, Ka-33 correspond
further investigation vide by PW-6in which the money orders ence
Exhibits Ka-6 to Ka-18 and Ka- paid on 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and letters were
32 to Ka-33 04.07.98 were found bogus confirmed
by Shri
Rajesh
Kmar
Paliwal PW-
2 and Shri
R.N.Yadav
PW-6
36 OA 3718/2016
I(v) In view of documentary and oral evidences adduced by the
presenting officer, it is clear that above money orders were not entered in the register of money orders received for payment (MO-3) on 12.06.98, 01.07.98 and 04.07.98 but the C.O. made available cash for their payment on the strength of memo given by MO paid PA to him for which no receipt was taken in hand to hand cash receipt book Exh Ka-27 as shown at above 'B'.
In the light of foregoing facts and circumstances, documentary evidences from Exhibit Ka-1 to Exhibit Ka-33 produced by the Presenting Officer on behalf of disciplinary authority through PW-1 to PW-8, defence representation of the C.O. and written briefs of both side i.e. of the P.O. and that of the C.O. I V.D. Lawaniya, Inspector Posts, East Sub Division Agra arrived at the conclusion that Shri Vijay Singh while performing the duties of Asstt. Treasurer-III Agra Fort HO failed to follow the prescribed procedure/rules as shown in article of charges in Annexure-I and II of charge sheet. Hence all the charges levelled against the Charged Official in Article- I, II and II are fully proved."
The inquiry report was furnished to the applicant for enabling him to file representation against the inquiry report. The applicant filed representation against the inquiry report. Considering the entire material and discussing once again the evidence on record and taking into account the grounds raised in the representation, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect on the applicant vide order dated 10.06.2015. The applicant filed an appeal. The appellate authority also after considering the entire material and discussing the grounds raised by the applicant rejected the appeal vide order dated 21.06.2016.
37 OA 3718/20165. The counsel for the applicant vehemently and strenuously submitted that the enquiry is vitiated as the time schedule of 18 months is not adhered to by the respondents in completing the departmental enquiry and he further submitted that the preliminary enquiry report on the basis of which the disciplinary proceedings was initiated was not supplied to him by the Inquiry Officer and he further submitted that out of the 13 documents which the inquiry officer directed the respondents to supply to the applicant only 2 documents were supplied to him and thereby he was prejudiced in taking defence. He further submitted that the authors of many of the documents which were taken on record were not produced as witnesses to enabling him to cross-examine regarding the authenticity of those documents as such he was prejudiced. He further submitted that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have not considered the grounds raised by him. The counsel for the applicant submitted written arguments which are extracted below:-
"5. The applicant is aggrieved due to following reasons, among others:-
5.1 The inquiry having commenced in January, 2008 culminated in penalty order only on 10.06.2015.
It, therefore, stands vitiated on account of non-
38 OA 3718/2016observance of time schedule laid down by Govt. of India in O.M. dated 14.10.2013 (Annexure A), C.V.C's instructions dated 18.01.2016 as well as Hon'ble Apex Court judgment dated 16.12.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 958/2010-Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi.
5.3 During the inquiry, on 26.09.2011 the applicant had requested the I.O for thirteen (13) documents, essential for his defence (Annexure A- 5, p.98). On 27.9.2011 (Annexure A-6, p 99-
100), without assigning any reasons whatsoever, I.O. disallowed the document at S.No. 1, viz, Preliminary Enquiry (PE) report, while allowing the remaining 12 documents.
5.3.1 The PE report was the document, based on which the main inquiry commenced. The PE report would have been crucial for cross-examination of witnesses in view of statement of witnesses(if) recorded in PE. Thus, access to PE report was vital. In this context, the applicant seeks to rely on judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of 'Kashinath Dikshita Vs. UOI ( 1986) 3 SCC 229 among others.
5.3.2 Also in G0I Order No. 20 below Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (Annexure RA-1, p.60-61 of Counter Reply) it has inter alia been stated that question of relevance of a document should be looked from point of view of defence (p.118), that in any case, reasons for denial of documents should be cogent and substantial and invariably be recorded in writing (Para 4.7.2-4..7.3, p.12 of OA, para 5.4 (i) (a), p. 17-18 of OA, Para 4.7.2., p 5-7 of Rejoinder ] 5.3.3 Out of the 12 documents allowed by the I.O, only two documents (S.No. 11&12) were made available to the applicants; that the respondents did not provide the rest, saying that the same were not available. However, it is submitted that due to failure of the respondents to ensure safe custody of crucial documents, the applicant should not be made to suffer (Para 4.7.3, p. 7-8 of Rejoinder). In this context the applicant seeks to 39 OA 3718/2016 rely on the principles laid down in the matter of "Munna Lal Sharma vs. UOI" [CAT (PB) New Delhi O.A No. 2303/2008, p. 19-20 of judgment] upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 'UOI vs. Munna Lal Sharma [WP(C] no.5165/2010, para], among others.
5.4 Apart from assailing non-supply of essential documents, the applicant had inter alia made following submissions before IO, Disciplinary Authority (DA) and Appellate Authority (AA) (Annexure A-7, p. 103-106 of OA and Annexure A-8, p.107-116, Annexure A-9 p. 117-124]
(a) Several HVMOs mentioned in Article II & III of Charge Sheet in support of the allegations had not been mentioned in Annexure III of the Charge Sheet and were not produced in the inquiry (p.104; 106 and p. 109-110, p.119-120 of OA)
(b) The statement of concerned clerk (viz.MO Paid Assistant) Shri Vijayant Vikram Singh had been recorded but he was not called as prosecution witness [p.104, p. 110 and 120 of OA]
(c) The applicant's request for Memo of Distribution of work was not acceded to which would have established that the amounts (in question) for window payments for MOs (payment through counter) was/were not given by him (there were more than one treasurer; the applicant was working on split duty, viz., morning and evening) p.19, 104 and 110, 120 of OA).
(d) The Register known as Register of Money Order received (MO-3) which was absolutely essential to prove how much amount was given to which Postman by the applicant, whether disputed money orders were paid through Postmen or through Counter Asstt. at window, etc., was not produced in the inquiry(p.17, 105, 113-114, 121 of OA).
40 OA 3718/2016(dd) The Treasurer had no concern with the work of MO paid Branch; he paid the amount to postman as per MO-3(p. 120-121).
(e) That while issuing the charge-sheet the DA was not sure whether the disputed (alleged bogus) Money Orders mentioned therein were paid through Postmen or Counter Assistant at window (p. 18, 104, 110-111); that in these circumstances, in the absence of MO-3 the entire charge-sheet was vague [p.18, 104, 110-111 of OA] 5.5 In the penalty order the Disciplinary Authority had observed that as per analysis and assessment of evidence/witnesses adduced during the inquiry it was clear that Money Orders (MOs) mentioned in the charge-sheet were not paid through the concerned postman as those could not be given to a single Postman, being beyond the prescribed limit (p.19-20 and 56 of OA).
This being so, the allegations against the applicant are not established since he was not concerned with payment by other mode, viz., payment through counter (p.20, 110 and 115 of OA). This aspect has not been appreciated by the Appellate Authority. 5.6 It has been admitted by the earlier Appellate Authority in his order dated 20.2.2007 that duties of checking of MOs were exclusively assigned to the staff of MO paid branch and applicant's duties were confined to handling over cash to the official paying the MOs; that the Treasurer never happened to see the MOs intended to be paid through Postman or Counter Assistant at the window [(vii) of p.76-A, (x) and (xi) of p.77-A read with p. 79-A of the OA].
This being so, the Article of Chare have no concern with Treasury Branch/Applicant as stated in this Appeal (p.120).
41 OA 3718/20165.7 It is also noticed from p. 29-32 of OA (IO's report) that attested copies of several exhibits/letters signed by senior officers (viz., SSPOs) were produced in the inquiry but the Authors of most of those letters were not produced as witnesses, thereby vitiating the inquiry on this account as well.
5.8 Without prejudice to the above, it is also submitted that in their judgment dated 23.11.2006 in OA No. 2899/2004 this Hon'ble Tribunal had inter alia observed that:
"4.........The Appellate Authority has not played its role as envisaged under Rule 27......"(p. 72-73 of OA). In his Appeal, the applicant had referred to the above observations. The Appellate Authority has not even claimed/ professed to have observed the provisions of Rule 27 of CCS(CCA) Rules. Also, in light of observations of the Hon'ble Tribunal, as aforesaid, without prejudice to all other submissions, it is also submitted that the punishment of compulsory retirement is grossly disproportionate to the alleged lapses.
5.9 In a criminal case preferred against the Appellant (p.133 of OA) in respect of the misconduct(s) alleged in the previous charge-sheet ( to which the present charge sheet is relatable), the applicant has now been acquitted by the Hon'ble Trial Court.
6. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, and in this OA and rejoinder, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to grant the relief prayed for in this OA (p.22)."42 OA 3718/2016
And in support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:-
"(1). Munna Lal Sharma Vs. UOI & Anr (CAT (PB) OA No. 2303/2008) (2) UOI Vs. Munna Lal Sharma (Delhi High Court WP (C) 5165/2010) (3) Kashinath Dikshta Vs. UOI (1986 (3) SCC 229) (4) State of UP Vs. Shatrughan Lal & Anr.
(1998) 6 SCC 651) (5) UOI Vs. Harpal Singh (Delhi High Court) (RSA 144/2014) (6) Prem Nath Bali Vs. High Court of Delhi & Anr.
(SC, CA No. 958/2010) (7) Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1999 SC 3734)."
6. The counsel for the respondents equally vehemently submitted that the preliminary enquiry report was a confidential report and as such the inquiry officer disallowed furnishing the same to the applicant and that only two documents were available out of the 12 documents which were furnished to the applicant and the other documents were stolen as such they were not available and regarding the said missing or stealing of the documents an FIR was lodged. The relevant averments of the respondents in this regard are extracted below:-
43 OA 3718/2016"4.7.2. (Annexure A-6 of the OA (order sheet no.5 dated 27.9.2011) relates to matter of records hence admitted. But the contention of the applicant is not acceptable. It is submitted here that as Government of India instruction no.23 given below Rule 14 (Swamy CCS (CCA) Rules 26th Edition 2001) photocopy annexed as Annexure RA-1), the right of access to official records is not unlimited and it is open to the government to deny such access if in it's opinion is not relevancy of the case. The preliminary enquiry reports are usually confidential and intended only to satisfy the competent authority whether further action in the nature of regular department inquiry for any other action is called for. It is not necessary to give access to the government servant to these reports. Hence action of the Inquiry Officer for disallowing preliminary inquiry report (Doc. At Serial No. 1 of list dated 26.09.2011 of additional document) is in order. The Inquiry Officer examined the relevancy of additional documents and allowed admissible documents listed at serial no. 2 to 23 of list dated 26.09.2011 (annexure 6 of this OA).
4.7.3 Admitted to the extent of applicant letter dated 09.02.15 and order sheet dated 23.01.12 (Annexure A-7 colly of this OA) Rest contention of applicant is not acceptable because all available documents no.11 and 12 were provided to the applicant. Rest additional document could not be provided due to their unavailability. It is further mentioned here that the important related record of Money Orders paid including register of Money Orders received were stolen by miscreants for whom matter was reported to Police Station Rakabganj, Agra who registered the case under case crime no. 252/1998. The concerned criminal case is pending before court of law. The applicant by supplying available additional documents. This fact has been discussed in para 6 of punishment order dated 10.06.15 & para 4.3 of appellate order dated 21.06.16 (Annexure A-1 colly of this OA)."44 OA 3718/2016
For non-supplying the preliminary enquiry report and for non availability of 10 out of 12 documents, the respondents have given reasons and they have also filed complaints regarding the non-availability of those documents for having been stolen by some body. That from the perusal of the inquiry report it is crystal clear that the applicant was given reasonable opportunity of cross-examine the witnesses and as many as 33 documents were produced in the enquiry and were considered and in so far as the delay in completing the departmental enquiry, the applicant is also partially responsible in challenging the proposal to hold the departmental enquiry by filing OA before this Tribunal which has been referred to above.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the counsel for the applicant is not applicable. We have perused the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority they are well reasoned and speaking orders.
8. The law relating to judicial review by the Tribunal in the departmental enquiries has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:
45 OA 3718/2016(1). In the case of K.L.Shinde Vs. State of Mysore (1976) 3 SCC 76), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 9 observed as under:-
"9. Regarding the appellant's contention that there was no evidence to substantiate the charge against him, it may be observed that neither the High Court nor this Court can re- examine and re-assess the evidence in writ proceedings. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence against a delinquent to justify his dismissal from service is a matter on which this Court cannot embark. It may also be observed that departmental proceedings do not stand on the same footing as criminal prosecutions in which high degree of proof is required. It is true that in the instant case reliance was placed by the Superintendent of Police on the earlier statements made by the three police constables including Akki from which they resiled but that did not vitiate the enquiry or the impugned order of dismissal, as departmental proceedings are not governed by strict rules of evidence as contained in the Evidence Act. That apart, as already stated, copies of the statements made by these constables were furnished to the appellant and he cross-examined all of them with the help of the police friend provided to him. It is also significant that Akki admitted in the course of his statement that he did make the former statement before P. S. I. Khada-bazar police station, Belgaum, on November 21, 1961 (which revealed appellant's complicity in the smuggling activity) but when asked to explain as to why he made that statement, he expressed his inability to do so. The present case is, in our opinion, covered by a decision of this Court in State of Mysore v.
Shivabasappa, (1963) 2 SCR 943=AIR 1963 SC 375 where it was held as follows:-
"Domestic tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are not courts and therefore, they are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts nor are 46 OA 3718/2016 they bound by strict rules of evidence. They can, unlike courts, obtain all information material for the points under enquiry from all sources, and through all channels, without being fettered by rules and procedure which govern proceedings in court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against who it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair opportunity must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, but where such an opportunity has been given, the proceedings are not open to attack on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure followed in courts.
2. In respect of taking the evidence in an enquiry before such tribunal, the person against whom a charge is made should know the evidence which is given against him, so that he might be in a position to give his explanation. When the evidence is oral, normally the explanation of the witness will in its entirety, take place before the party charged who will have full opportunity of cross-examining him. The position is the same when a witness is called, the statement given previously by him behind the back of the party is put to him ,and admitted in evidence, a copy thereof is given to the party and he is given an opportunity to cross-examine him. To require in that case that the contents of the previous statement should be repeated by the witness word by word and sentence by sentence, is to insist on bare technicalities and rules of natural justice are matters not of form but of substance. They are sufficiently complied with when previous statements given by witnesses are read over to them, marked on their admission, copies thereof given to the person charged and he is given an opportunity to cross-examine them."
Again in the case of B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. UOI & Others (AIR 1996 SC 484) at para 12 and 13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
47 OA 3718/2016"12. 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 eye of the Court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of a misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice be 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 office is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal on its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at the own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry of 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.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co- extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of 48 OA 3718/2016 evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H. C. Goel (1964) 4 SCR 718 : (AIR 1964 SC 364), this Court held at page 728 (of SCR): (at p 369 of AIR), that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued".
Recently in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. P.Gunasekaran (2015(2) SCC 610), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 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:
a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous consideration;
f. 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;49 OA 3718/2016
g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence."
9. In view of the facts of the case narrated above and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above and in view of the fact that there is no violation of any procedural rules or principles of natural justice, the OA is devoid of merit, and hence dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (S.N.Terdal) Member (A) Member (J) 'sk' ....