Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
A Minz vs D/O Post on 9 January, 2024
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH
OA No. 621 of 2016
Heard & reserved on : 08.01.2024 Order on : 09.01.2024
Present:
Hon'ble Mr.Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative Member
Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Judicial Member
In the matter of
Anuranjan Minz,
aged about 42 years,
Son of Hari Minz, At./Po.-Kantapalli,
Via-Gurundia, Dist-Sundargarh,
Ex-GDS BPM, Kantapalli B.O.
.............Applicant
-Versus-
1. Union of India, represented through
It's Secretary-cum-Director General of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110116.
2. Post Master General, Sambalpur Region,
At/Po/Dist-Sambalpur-768001.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Sundargarh Division,
At/Po./Dist-Sundargarh-770001.
..........Respondents.
O.A. No.621 of 2016
2
For the applicant : Mr. N.R. Routray, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. A. Mishra, Counsel
ORDER
Rajnish Kumar Rai, (JM) The instant Original Application has been filed by the Applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 challenging the removal of the applicant from service seeking the following relief(s):-
" To quash Annexure-A/2, A/6 & A/8 ,
direct the respondents to reinstate the
applicant in service with all
consequential benefit.
And any other order(s) as the Hon'ble
Tribunal deems just and proper in the
interest of justice.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant was appointed as GDS BPM of Kantapalli B.O. in account with Gurundia S.O. under Udit Nagar H.O. on 03.10.1997. While working as such the Inspector of Posts (IPOs) Banai Sub-Division paid a visit to Kantapalli B.O. on 09.01.2012 and asked the Applicant to produce Office cash immediately and no time was given to bring the cash on time. It is O.A. No.621 of 2016 3 submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that due to moist attack on that day and on apprehension of attack and to keep the Office cash and stamp safely, the Applicant had not brought the cash and stamp (which was kept in a relative's house on 07.01.2012 in safe custody ). The IPOs Banai Sub-Division immediately placed the Applicant under put off duty vide order dated 09.01.2012 (Annexure-A/1) who is not competent authority, which is bad in law and the entire proceeding basing on the said action is ab initio void. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after a week the Applicant credited the entire amount at Bonaigarh S.O. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 vide his Memo dated 30.08.2012 (Annexure-A/2) charge sheeted the Applicant for keeping shortage of Govt. cash to the tune of Rs.17,903/-, Indian Postage Stamp (IPS) of Rs.447/- and revenue stamp of Rs.84/- without supplying the listed documents and statements from the listed witness which are irregularities in respect of enquiry under Rule-10 of GDS Conduct and Engagement Rules for imposition of major punishment.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that the I.O. was violated the provisions of Rule asked O.A. No.621 of 2016 4 questions suitable for prosecution and not in accordance with Rule- 14 (18) of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965.
Inquiry proceedings were set aside in Moni Shankar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr. [JT200893) SC 484, (2008) 3SCC 484, 2008(3) SLJ 325 (SC)] for the reason that the Inquiring Authority had exceeded his limit in asking the mandatory question.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant further submitted that the Respondent No.3 dealt with the entire points of the Applicant in one para and passed the order of removal from service with immediate effect. The points raised by the applicant has not been properly considered for which the order passed by the Respondent No.3 is a non speaking order and thus the same cannot be allowed to stand in the tough stone of judicial scrutiny.
4. The learned counsel for the Respondents in their counter inter alia submitted that on 09.01.2012 the Inspector of Posts (IPOs), Bonaigarh Sub-Division visited Kantapali BO in account with Gurundia SO and found that cash of Rs.17903/-(Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Three only) was kept short by the GDS BPM, Kantapali BO ( the applicant) as per the opening balance of BO O.A. No.621 of 2016 5 accounts of 09.1.2012. When asked to make good the shortage amount the applicant stated that he will return the money within 5 days. But he made good the shortage amount by depositing Rs.17903/- on 17.01.12 at Bonaigarh SO under UCR. The IPOs also found that the applicant did not maintain the BO records properly. The IPOs, Bonaigarhplaced the applicant under put off duty on 09.1.2012 which was ratified vide SSPOs memo dated 13.01.12. The Applicant was thus, proceeded under Rule-10 of Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules-2011 on charges of (i) Keeping shortage of cash and (ii) not maintaining the office records. The applicant was communicated regarding this and was directed to submit a written statement of his defense within 10 days of receipt of memorandum vide letter dated 30.08.2012. But he did not submit any defense representation.
5. It is further submitted by the Respondents that the inquiry was initiated and IO/PO were appointed on 08.10.12 and the IO conducted sittings of inquiry on 16.11.12, 18.03.13, 19.03.13 and completed it on 19.03.13. The I.O. in his inquiry report held the charges framed against the applicant submitted his show cause O.A. No.621 of 2016 6 notice dated 07.06.2013(Annexure-A/5) as proved which interalia reproduce below:-
"...Article-I:- That the said Sri Anuranjan Minz while working as GDSBPM, Kantapali BO in account with Gurundia SO during the period from 03.10.1997 F/N to 08.01.2012 A/N kept shortage of Govt. Cash to the tgune of Rs.17903/- (Rupees seventeen thousand nine hundred three) only in the closing balance of Kantapali BO dated 07.01.2012 (08.01.2012 was Sunday) during visit by IPOs, Bonaigarh Sub Division to Kantapali BO on dated 09.01.2012. The said Sri Minz couldnot make good the shortage amount on 09.01.2012 and credited the shortage amount of Rs.17903/- only on dated 17.01.2012 under UCR at Bonaigarh SO vide UCR No. 1921 dated 17.01.2012 which was incorporated in Uditnagar HO account on 19.01.2012. Thus by his above act the said Sri Anuranjan Minz violated the provision of instructions contained in note below of Rule 11(2) of Rules for Branch Offices (Seventh Edition) Reprint.
It is therefore inputed that the said Sri Anuranjan Minz by his above act of misconduct failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in contravention to the provisions of Rule 21 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011.
Article-II:- That the said Sri Anuranjan Minz while working as GDSBPM, Kantapali BO in account with Gurundia SO during the aforesaid period did not maintain BO account book w.e.f. 13.11.2011 to 31.12.2011, BO journal since 12.11.2011 to 07.01.2012, SB journal since 26.07.2011 to 07.01.2012 violating the provisions of Rules 123 and 124 of Rules for Branch Offices (Seventh Edition) Reprint.
It is therefore imputed that the said Sri Anuranjan Minz by his above act of misconduct failed to maintain absolute devoition to duty in contravention to the provisions of Rule 21 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011.
5. Before commissioning regular hearing the presenting officer as well as the charged official were asked to submit list of additional documents/witness if they so wish in response to which CO has O.A. No.621 of 2016 7 submitted a list. But the request was not acceded to as the documents requisitioned were not relevant to the charges levelled against the charged official. Similarly the PO has intimated in writing that no additional documents/witness are required to be examined from prosecution side."
6. It is further submitted by the Respondents that after completion of disciplinary proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority after taking into consideration all the facts awarded punishment of removal from service vide Memo dated 12.09.2013 (Annexure-A/6) which interalia reads as under:-
" ... Sri Anuranjan Minz, GDSBPM, Kantapali BO in account with Durundia SO under Uditnagar HO was proceeded against under Rule - 10 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 vide Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices, Sundargarh Division, memo No.L2-24/2011-12 dated 30.08.2012. The statement of charges framed against Sri Anuranjan Minz are as follows.
"...Article-I:- That the said Sri Anuranjan Minz while working as GDSBPM, Kantapali BO in account with Gurundia SO during the period from 03.10.1997 F/N to 08.01.2012 A/N kept shortage of Govt. Cash to the tgune of Rs.17903/- (Rupees seventeen thousand nine hundred three) only in the closing balance of Kantapali BO dated 07.01.2012 (08.01.2012 was Sunday) during visit by IPOs, Bonaigarh Sub Division to Kantapali BO on dated 09.01.2012. The said Sri Minz couldnot make good the shortage amount on 09.01.2012 and credited the shortage amount of Rs.17903/- only on dated 17.01.2012 under UCR at Bonaigarh SO vide UCR No. 1921 dated 17.01.2012 which was incorporated in Uditnagar HO account on 19.01.2012. Thus by his above act the said Sri Anuranjan Minz violated the provision of instructions contained in note below of Rule 11(2) of Rules for Branch Offices (Seventh Edition) Reprint.O.A. No.621 of 2016 8
It is therefore inputed that the said Sri Anuranjan Minz by his above act of misconduct failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in contravention to the provisions of Rule 21 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011.
Article-II:- That the said Sri Anuranjan Minz while working as GDSBPM, Kantapali BO in account with Gurundia SO during the aforesaid period did not maintain BO account book w.e.f. 13.11.2011 to 31.12.2011, BO journal since 12.11.2011 to 07.01.2012, SB journal since 26.07.2011 to 07.01.2012 violating the provisions of Rules 123 and 124 of Rules for Branch Offices (Seventh Edition) Reprint.
It is therefore imputed that the said Sri Anuranjan Minz by his above act of misconduct failed to maintain absolute devoition to duty in contravention to the provisions of Rule 21 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011.
That, the said Sri Anuranjan Minz was given an opportunity to make such representation as he might with to make against the proposal within ten days of receipt of the memo of charges issued vide this office memo of even number dated 30.08.2012 . Sri Minz received the memo of charges dated 30.08.2012 on 05.09.2012 and did not submit any written statement of defence to this office. Appointment of IO/PO was made vide this office memo of even number dated 08.10.2012. Sri Mukunda Behera, ASPOs (Outdoor), Sundargarh Division and Sri B.K. Pradhan, IPOs, Rourkela West Sub- Division, Rourkela were appointed as the Inquiry Authority and Presenting Officer respectively to inquire into the charges framed against the said Sri Minz and to present the case in the inquiry on behalf of the disciplinary authority respectively vide this office memo of even number dated 08.10.2012.
The IO conducted the sittings of inquiry on 16.11.2012, 18.3.2013 and 19.3.2013. The inquiry was completed on 19.3.2013 and the IO submitted his inquiry report to this office vide his letter No.IO/ASP (OD) SundargarhDivn - 01/2013 dated 31.5.2013. The IO in his report has held the charges under article-I and article-II against the said Sri Anuranjan Minz as proved.
A copy of IO's report was sent to the said Sri Minz vide this office letter of even number dated 6.6.2013 with instructions therein to submit his representation if any against the Inquiry report of the Inquiring Authority within fifteen days of receipt of the above letter.O.A. No.621 of 2016 9
Sri Minz received the IO's report on 15.06.2013 and submitted his defence representation to Divisional Office. Sundargarh belatedly on 20.07.2013 which was received by this office on 24.7.2013.
In his defence representation dated 20.7.2013, the said Sri Minz has stated that during that period, the moist activities was in full swing in that area and due to life risk no body was coming to outside and for that reason the Post Office was functioning for a very short period. The Post Office is situated in a jungle area and the cash and stamps were kept by him though his wife in one of her relative's house in the said jungle and it required time for production which he could not comply instantly. After the operation of moist action in that area he obtained the cash through his wife and credited the same in the Post Office.
Similarly due to moist attack any time he could not maintain the records properly. He further stated that the Department has not provided the iron safe or chest for safe custody of cash and he was keeping it on his own responsibility on the fear of attack and killing of himself and he had not any ill intention to keep shortage of cash. He requests to exonerate him from the charges taking into consideration the past 15 years service rendered by him in the Department.
I have gone through the memo of charges against Sri Anuranjan Minz, Inquiry Report of Inquiring Authority dated 31.05.2013, the defence representation of Sri Minz. In his defence representation Sri Minz has stated that he kept the 'cash somewhere and he could not produce for verification instantly. He was given sufficient time by the Inspector of Posts, Bonaigarh Sub-Division for production of cash on 09.01.2012. He could not do so and credited the shortage amount of cash of Rs.17903/- only on 17.01.2012 after a long gap of seven days. Therefore his statement is far from belief. Further he had to keep post office cash in his own custody. He failed to do so and violated Departmental rules. He has to maintain all the Post Office records as and when a transaction takes place. He has to write the Account Book daily. But he has failed to do so. Therefore, the defence representation of Sri Minz is not acceptable. Thus the charges against the said Sri Minz have been fully proved.
In view of the above findings and taking all the facts of the case into consideration, I Sri S.C. Barik, Senior Supdt. Of Post Offices, Sundargarh Division, Sundargarh is of the opinion that the said Sri Minz is not a fit and trustworthy person to be retained in GDS O.A. No.621 of 2016 10 engagement any further as he has lost his credibility in the Department and award him with the punishment of removal from engagement in GDS service with immediate effect."
7. It is further submitted by the Respondents that the Applicant submitted a revision petition to the Postmaster General, Sambalpur Region against the order of removal of service which was rejected vide memo dated 13.07.2015(Annexure-A/8).
8. Heard learned counsel for both sides. Perused the relevant records/ documents and citations submitted by both sides.
9. It is the case of the applicant that he was placed under suspension/put off duty by Inspector of Posts, Bonai who is not competent authority to do so. He further submitted that due to fear of maoist attack, he had kept office cash at one of his relatives home and he had deposited it back. It is further stand of the applicant that without following due procedure of Rules, the IO proceeded with inquiry which is bad in law.
10. The scope of interference by this Tribunal in disciplinary proceedings is limited. As per the settled law on the scope of judicial O.A. No.621 of 2016 11 review of the disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal can interfere in the disciplinary proceedings if there is violation of natural justice or statutory rules or if the findings are based on no evidence. In this regard Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India &Anr.. reported in 1996 AIR 484 has held as under:' "Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or O.A. No.621 of 2016 12 finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
11. In the case of Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekhran 2015 (2) SCC page 610, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:' ".........In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
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 considerations;
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;
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 he finding;
i) The finding of fact is based on no evidence."
O.A. No.621 of 2016 13
12. In the instant case after receipt of charge memo the applicant was given scope to submit his defence representation but he never did it. He participated in the inquiry and no documents has been filed on behalf of the applicant that he had ever brought to notice of the Inquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority regarding violation of any rules during the inquiry. The applicant had asked for certain additional documents which was rejected by the IO vide his letter dated 22.11.2012. The applicant did not prefer any appeal against it. After submission of the inquiry report, the applicant was supplied with a copy and he submitted his defence representation. After going through the inquiry report and applicants defence, the Disciplinary Authority had imposed punishment of removal from service. The applicant then submitted an appeal which was considered by the appellate authority and rejected. It is seen that the applicant had raised the ground of non production of documents, the Branch Office being situated in Jungle area and the action of the IO during the inquiry. The appellate authority in his order has clearly addressed the points raised by the applicant. O.A. No.621 of 2016 14
13. It is seen that Rule 12 provides that an Inspector of Posts can by general order a GDS on put off duty but the same has to be confirmed by Recruiting Authority within fifteen days. The applicant was placed under put off duty on 09.01.2012 by the Inspector of Posts, Bonai and the same was ratified by SSPOs, Sundargarh on 13.01.2012. It is also seen from the statement dated 09.01.2012 of the applicant that he had stated that he had kept shortage of cash and will return the same within five days which he did on 17.01.2012. It is seen from order of both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority that they had taken into consideration all the points raised by the applicant and passed a speaking and reasoned order. This Tribunal finds that the applicant was given all scope for defending himself in the inquiry and does not find any violation of principle of natural justice either in the inquiry or thereafter warranting interference by this Tribunal.
14. Accordingly the OA is dismissed being devoid of merit. No costs.
(Rajnish Kumar Rai) (Pramod Kumar Das)
Member (Judl.) Member (Admn.)
(KB/PS)
O.A. No.621 of 2016