Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Aditya Prasad Panda vs D/O Post on 24 June, 2022
1 O.A.No. 260/00448 of 2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00448 of 2018
Reserved on: 13.05.2022 Pronounced on: 24.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
Aditya Prasad Panda, aged about 56 years, S/o. Late
Narayan Panda, resident of Vill Kantioputasahi, PO -
Kantioputasahi, Via - Analaberini, PS- Tumusingha,
Dist- Dhenkanal, Odisha, PIN-759026, presently
working as Postal Assistant, Angul HO, Dist - Angul,
Odisha, PIN 759122.
..... Applicant
For the Applicant : Mr. C.P.Sahani, Counsel
-Versus-
1. Union of India, represented through its Secretary
Cum Director General of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad
Marg, New Delhi - 110116.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, At/P.O.
Bhubaneswar, Dist.:- Khurda, Odisha - 751001.
3. Postmaster General, Sambalpur Region, Sambalpur -
768001.
4. Superintendent of Post Offices, Dhenkanal Division,
Dhenkanal - 759001.
..... Respondents
2 O.A.No. 260/00448 of 2018
For the Respondents : Mr. G.Sethi, Counsel
ORDER
Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member (J):
The applicant has filed this O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to seek the following prayers:
"(i) Admit the Original Application, and
(ii) After hearing the counsels for the parties be further pleased to quash the Charge Memo No. F/Misc/Ch-V/Disc-2 dated 07.10.2016 at Annexure-A/4, the impugned order of punishment vide Memo No. F/Misc/Ch.V/Disc-2 dated 15.02.2017 at Annexure-A/7 and the order vide Memo No. ST/53-08/2017 dated 13.10.2017 at Annexure-A/9. And consequently, orders may be passed directing the Departmental Respondents to allow all consequential benefits.
And/or
(iii) Pass any other order(s) as the Hon'ble Tribunal deem just and proper in the interest of justice considering the facts and circumstances of the case and allow this O.A. with costs."
2. The gist and kernel of the case is that order of punishment imposed on one Sri Bijaya Kumar Naik, PA Angul HO vide memo dated 24.07.2013, was received by the applicant, who was working as Postmaster Angul H.O., on 25.09.2013 for implementation. The applicant handed over the said order of punishment to Sri Trilochan Sahoo, Accountant, Angul H.O. through Dak Distribution Register, on the same day. Sri Sahoo, 3 O.A.No. 260/00448 of 2018 Accountant, recorded the said order of punishment in the Punishment Register and Service Book of Sri Naik, which was signed by the applicant. But, it is alleged that the applicant as a supervisory officer failed to implement the said order of punishment immediately and the delay in implementing the order has put the administration in embracing situation thereby disobeying the order of superior authority and violating Rule 147 of Postal Manual; Vol-III and the provisions contained in GID-23 below Rule -3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Alleging that the conduct of the applicant was unbecoming on the part of a Govt. servant contravening the provision of Rule-3 (1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, memorandum of charge under Rule 16 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued to the applicant under Annexure-A/4 dated 07.10.2016. The applicant has put his defence stating inter alia that there was no fault on his part so as to be proceeded under Rule 16 of Rules, 1965 on the grounds as under:
(i) His posting as Postmaster of Angul, HO was in violation of the procedures being not a qualified Accountant/HSG -I, HSG-
II/LSG nor senior most official;
4 O.A.No. 260/00448 of 2018
(ii) On 25.09.2013, he received the order of punishment dt.
24.07.2013 imposed on Sri Naik, noted the same in the Service Book of the official and the Punishment Register and handed over the same to the Accountant for its implementation and it was the duty of the bill Clerk and Accountant to implement the order;
(iii) No specific date was mentioned in the order of punishment as required under GIO (2)(a)(i) below FR-29. The pay of Sri Naik was at Rs. 17470/- and after effecting the annual increment of 3% in July 2013 it should have been 18000/-, which was to be effected on or after 31.07.2013, i.e. after drawl of the salary for July, 2013. Hence, the order of reduction to lower stage by one stage could not be implemented in July 2013. The pay band shown was in anticipation of PB Rs. 18000/- which caused technical problem in implementing the punishment in July 2013 even through the order could have been received in July 2013 instead of September, 2013.
(iv) The applicant was doing general supervision and the technical problem in implementing the order of punishment was never brought before him.
5 O.A.No. 260/00448 of 2018
(v) Further, even though there was no specific date of effect in the punishment order, when the order of punishment was subsequently implemented by recovering Rs. 7000/- no financial loss or administrative inconvenience was caused to the department.
(vi) When the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned punishment order took the stand that requisitioned documents were under collection, the issuance of charge sheet without collecting original document is bad as per Rule 69 of Postal Manual Vol III.
3. The Disciplinary Authority vide order under Annexure-A/7 dated 15.02.2017 held that being inspired by the trust of the divisional and higher authority the applicant has given his sweat and blood to restore the position of Angul HO which was in a mess because of huge pendency of SOSB branch and PLI/RPLI schedules. The applicant has narrated a good number of things done by him during his tenure as Postmaster, Angul HO to clear huge pendency in different items of work by giving his sweat and blood but he has not brought any fact to absolve him from the charges leveled against him. He has simply thrown the responsibility on 6 O.A.No. 260/00448 of 2018 the Accountant, Angul HO to hoodwink his misdeeds. Accordingly, imposed the punishment of withholding of one increment of pay for a period of six month without cumulative effect. Applicant preferred appeal under Annexure-A/8 dated 13.05.2017 and the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal vide order under Annexure-A/9 dated 13.10.2017 in holding that non-implementation of the order is a grave misconduct and taking various pleas to shift the responsibility is not acceptable. Hence, being aggrieved, the present O.A. has been filed.
4. The respondents filed counter inter alia stating therein that Postmaster, Angul HO has been entrusted with the duty of supervision of the accounts branch but applicant failed to do so resulting non- implementation of the order of punishment, which amounts to disobedience of the orders of the superior authority. The applicant has requested for perusal of 25 number of documents, out of which, some of the documents, which were relevant, were procured and the applicant was permitted vide letter dated 01.02.2017 to peruse the available documents but the applicant did not present himself and requested to decide the proceedings as per his representation. The Disciplinary Authority after considering all the materials available on record and the 7 O.A.No. 260/00448 of 2018 points raised by the applicant in his representation took a lenient view and imposed the punishment in a well reasoned and speaking order which was upheld by the Appellate Authority. Thus, there being no injustice caused in the decision making process of the matter judicial intervention is not warranted and the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
5. The applicant more or less reiterating the grounds taken in the O.A. filed rejoinder and the sum and substance of the rejoinder is that the imposition of punishment being without due application of mind and proper appreciation of the facts and matter, the applicant is entitled to the relief claimed in the O.A.
6. Ld. Counsel for the applicant in course of hearing submitted that for such belated implementation of the punishment imposed on Sri Naik, the Accountant who was at fault was departmentally proceeded and imposed with the punishment of withholding of one increment of his pay for a period of one year. When it was found that the Accountant was at fault and was imposed with the punishment, initiation of proceedings against the applicant for the self same allegation is not justified. It is submitted that proceedings was initiated against the applicant for violation of rule 147 of Postal Manual 43 by the applicant. The Rule 147 of Postal Manual 8 O.A.No. 260/00448 of 2018 provides that "Postmasters or other officers who are responsible for ensuring the implementation of punishment orders relating to withholding of increment, reduction of pay etc. issued by the Divisional Officer/Circle Office should be required to send an acknowledgement on receipt of the punishment orders to the Divisional Officer/Circle Office. They should also be required to confirm that appropriate entries have been made regarding the punishment in the relevant records and registers." When entry in the relevant record and register is not in dispute, the allegation that the applicant has violated the above rule position does not arise. Further, it has been submitted that when the allegations are in factual nature the authority concerned ought to have made the inquiry and imposition of punishment without making any such inquiry is bad in law. Last but not the least, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment without taking into consideration all the points raised by the applicant and giving him an opportunity of being heard and the Appellate Authority was swayed away with the findings of the disciplinary authority without examining as to whether rules and principle natural justice has been properly been followed while upholding the order of punishment. The arguments of the applicant was vehemently opposed by 9 O.A.No. 260/00448 of 2018 the Ld. Counsel for the respondents by stating that interference in the order of punishment imposed in a disciplinary proceedings, by the Tribunal is limited and the Tribunal can interfere where the punishment is based on no evidence, without following due procedure of rules and violation of principle of natural justice or grossly disproportionate to the gravity of offence but the case of the applicant does not qualify any one of the principles thereby requiring interference in the matter especially when the applicant has been visited with the punishment in a well reasoned and speaking order after giving him due opportunity to prove his innocence. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
7. Considered the rival claims of the parties and perused the records. It is seen that the punishment imposed on another employee Sri Naik, though belatedly, has been implemented and for such delay the Accountant has already been held responsible and punished in a disciplinary proceedings against him. It is alleged by the respondents that the act of the applicant was unbecoming on the part of the government servant for not following the provision of Rule 147 of Postal Manual. The said provision provides that the supervising officer to confirm that 10 O.A.No. 260/00448 of 2018 appropriate entries have been made regarding the punishment in the relevant records and registers. The said entries have in fact been made by the applicant. Therefore, the findings given in this regard against the applicant in the departmental proceedings in question are based on no evidence.
8. Nevertheless, trite is the position of the law that even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of O.K.Bhardwaj Vs. UOI & Ors., 2002 SCC(L&S) 188 had held that "even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with". In the case of Uday Shankar Das Vs. UOI in OA 436/2001, who was imposed with the minor penalty without inquiry, 11 O.A.No. 260/00448 of 2018 by applying the decision of Hon'ble Apex in the case of O.K.Bhardwaj (supra) this Tribunal quashed the punishment vide order dated 12.03.2003, which was also upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.
9. Viewed the matter from any angle, it cannot be said that the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on the applicant under Annexure-A/7 dated 15.02.2017 upheld by the Appellate Authority under Annexure-A/9 dated 13.10.2017 are in compliance with natural justice and in accordance with law. Hence, the impugned orders are quashed with direction that the applicant is entitled to the consequential benefits flowing from quashing of the impugned orders of punishment of reduction by one stage for one. Respondents are directed to pass the consequential orders allowing the applicant the benefits of pay and other allowances which had been affected due to the penalty imposed within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, the O.A. is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA) Member (Judicial) RK/PS