Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
M Chandrashekarayya vs Deptt Of Posts on 28 November, 2024
1
OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00095/2023
ORDER RESERVED ON: 21.11.2024
DATE OF ORDER: 28.11.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
M. Chandrashekarayya, Age: 27 years,
S/o Shivalingaiah, Ex. GDS BPM,
K. Kallahalli B.O. A/W Halavagalu - 583 123,
Bellary Postal Dn, Residing at;
M.A. College Road, Indiranagar,
22nd Ward, Laxmeeshwar - 582 116,
Gadag District. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri P. Kamalesan)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by Secretary,
Department of Post,
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Chief Post Master General,
Karnataka Circle,
Bangalore - 560 001.
mikasha suneja
mikasha CAT Bangalore
2024.12.03
suneja 17:16:14+05'30'
2
OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
3. Post Master General,
N.K. Region,
Dharwad - 580 001.
4. Director of Postal Services,
N.K. Region,
Dharwad - 580 001.
5. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Bellary Postal Division,
Bellary - 583 102. ...Respondents
(By Shri S. Sugumaran, Sr. Panel Counsel)
ORDER
PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
This OA has been filed on 01.03.2023 for quashment of the order Annexure - A7 dated 21.04.2021, Annexure - A8 dated 09.08.2021 and Annexure - A10 dated 25.11.2022. The reliefs claimed in para 8 of the OA are as under: -
"1. Quash the O/O superintendent of post offices, Bellary Dn, Bellary - 583102 Memo No. BLR/F6/15/02- 2020 dated: 21-4-2021. Issued by respondent No.5 vide Annexure - A7.
2. Quash the O/o Post Master General, North Karnataka Region, Dharwad-580001, Memo No. NKR/VIG/Appeal /035/2021 dated: 9-8-2021 vide Annexure - A8 issued by respondent No.4.
3. Quash the O/O Post Master General, North Karnataka Region, Dharwad - 580001, Memo No. mikasha suneja mikasha CAT Bangalore 2024.12.03 suneja 17:16:14+05'30' 3 OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE NKR/VIG/petition/811/2022 dated: 25-11-2022 Annexure - A10 order by respondent No.3.
4. Consequently direct the respondents to Review the penalty, of removal from service, since it is disproportionate to the charges alleged in the Memorandum of charge memo.
5. Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. These facts are not disputed in this case: -
a) The applicant was appointed as GDS BPM on 29.07.2016.
b) By Annexure - A1, the applicant was ordered put-off duty w.e.f.
24.02.2020.
c) The Superintendent of Post Office issued Annexure - A3 on 19.06.2020 to the applicant for not leaving the headquarters without permission.
d) A charge sheet dated 18.01.2021 was issued to the applicant in which four charges were framed.
e) The Inquiry Officer and the Presentation Officer were appointed and the charges were found proved in the Inquiry Report dated 05.03.2021 (Annexure - A6).
f) On 21.04.2021 the impugned order (Annexure - A7) was passed by which the applicant was removed from engagement with mikasha suneja mikasha CAT Bangalore 2024.12.03 suneja 17:16:14+05'30' 4 OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE immediate effect with the condition that he shall not be disqualified for future engagement.
g) The applicant preferred an appeal on 17.05.2021 and by order dated 09.08.2021 (Annexure - A8) the appeal was dismissed.
h) On 24.08.2022 / 27.08.2022 the applicant preferred a revision petition (Annexure - A9), which was also dismissed by order dated 25.11.2022 (Annexure - A10).
3. The applicant challenged the punishment order as well as the appeal and revisional order upon the ground that he has only three years of service and was not acquainted with the technological knowledge. The amount of Rs. 13,500/- was also deposited by the applicant. The applicant was forced to admit the charges during preliminary inquiry by the I.O and P.O on the advice if he admits the charges, the Inquiry will be closed early and his case will be viewed leniently. Because the applicant was under put-off duty therefore, he was anxious for reinstatement and for this reason he admitted the charges. He was 27 years old at the time of removal and his services have been ended only after a little service period of three years. The punishment is harsh that was not required in this case. Therefore, the impugned orders should be set aside.
mikasha suneja
mikasha CAT Bangalore
2024.12.03
suneja 17:16:14+05'30'
5
OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
4. On the other side, the respondents opposed the case of applicant by filing the reply statement on 03.10.2023. It is submitted by the respondents that the applicant admitted the charges voluntarily. Proper opportunity was also given to the applicant. He misappropriated the amount of poor public. Looking to the act committed by the applicant, proper punishment has been awarded. Therefore, no reason is found to quash the impugned orders.
5. The applicant counsel, during arguments submitted that only in the preliminary inquiry the applicant admitted the charges while he has been punished by saying the fact that he admitted the charges during regular inquiry. The aforesaid argument of the applicant counsel cannot be accepted. It appears that the charge sheet was issued on 18.01.2021 (Annexure - A5). It is the settled law that the initiation of departmental inquiry will be from the date of issuing the charge sheet. (See Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109 = 1993 SCC (L& S) 387 dated:
27.08.1991)
6. In this case, the charge sheet was issued on 18.01.2021 along with the charges articles 1 to 4 and also annexed with the mikasha suneja mikasha CAT Bangalore 2024.12.03 suneja 17:16:14+05'30' 6 OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Statement of Imputation of misconduct. The respondents submitted the letter Annexure - R1. The original R1 has been written by applicant himself in his writing on 05.03.2021. The English version of the aforesaid document is also submitted by the respondents. Therefore, it appears that on 05.03.2021 the applicant admitted the charges. While the charge sheet was issued earlier on 18.01.2021 therefore, it can be said that at the primary stage of departmental inquiry the applicant admitted the charges by submitting a written letter (Annexure - R1).
7. The article of charges is also important. Annexure - A1 annexed with the memorandum of charge dated 18.01.2021 shows that 4 charges were framed against the applicant. It will be useful to refer the aforesaid charges.
"Statement of Articles of charge framed against Sri M.Chandrashekarayya, GDS BPM (POD) K. Kallahalli BO a/w Halavagalu SO.
ARTICLE-I That Sri M Chandrashekarayya while working as GDS BPM K Kallahalli BO a/w Halavagalu SO during the period from 29/07/2016 Afternoon to 24/02/2020 has kept shortage of office cash to the tune of Rs.1220/- on 21/02/2020 noticed during the visit by Mailoverseer Harapanahalli sub-division and thus contravened the provisions of Rule 11 of Rules for Branch Offices (Eighth Edition) and failed to follow the instructions mikasha suneja mikasha CAT Bangalore 2024.12.03 suneja 17:16:14+05'30' 7 OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE No.18 mentioned in "WHAT A BRANCH POSTMASTER SHOULD NOT FAIL TO DO" of Rules for Branch Offices (Eighth Edition) and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty contravening the provisions of Rule-21 of Department of Posts, GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2020.
ARTICLE-II That the said Sri M Chandrashekarayya, while working in the aforesaid office, during the aforesaid period, has shown the following money orders as paid to Late Herya Naik S/o Badya Naik, Vyasanatanda, Halavagalu and used the value of the money orders for his personal use and thus contravened the provisions of Rule 10 and Rule 76 (4) of Rules for Branch Offices (Eighth edition) and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty contravening the provisions of Rule 21 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2020.
S eMO No. Date of Account Value Date Date of Name &
no. Issue office of shown as death of
address of the
eMO paid payee
payee (Sri)
(Rs)
1 052143630097 13/07/2019 Halavagalu 1000 01/08/2019 22/07/2019
968146 SO
2 0521436681285 26/08/2019 Halavagalu 1000 26/09/2019 22/07/2019 Herya naik,
74160 SO S/o Badya
3 052143714743 19/10/2019 Halavagalu 1000 04/11/2019 22/07/2019 Naik,
432151 SO Vyasana
Thanda
Harapanahalli
TOTAL 3000
ARTICLE-III
That the said Sri M Chandrashekarayya, while working in the aforesaid office during the aforesaid period has mikasha suneja mikasha CAT Bangalore 2024.12.03 suneja 17:16:14+05'30' 8 OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE obtained the below mentioned SB pass books with signature of the account holders on the SB-7 withdrawal form for effecting withdrawal from their SB Accounts, accounted the said withdrawals in RICT device but failed to disburse the withdrawal amount to the account holders, and utilized the amount for his personal use.
S Name of the SB A/c No Date of Amount
n account holder withdrawal of
o (Smt/Sri) withdra
wal
1 Shankaramma 3520040587 21/08/2019 1000
Mandala W/o K
Veerappa R/o K
Kallahalli
2 Nagappa 3569097658 08/02/2020 1000
Bendigere S/o
Neelappa R/o K
Kallahalli
3 Choudamma 3528628879 19/02/2020 1200
W/o
Hanumappa R/o
Chikkamajjiger
e, K Kallahalli
Post
Total 3200
It is therefore alleged that by the above acts Sri M Chandrashekarayya GDS BPM (POD) Kallahalli BO a/w Halavagalu SO has contravened the provisions of Rule 133 read with Rule 134 of Rules for Branch Offices (Sixth Edition) and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required by him under Rule 21 of Department of Posts GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2020.
ARTICLE-IV That the said Sri M Chandrashekarayya, while working in the aforesaid office, during the aforesaid period, has mikasha suneja mikasha CAT Bangalore 2024.12.03 suneja 17:16:14+05'30' 9 OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE failed to write BO Account book from 08/02/2020 to 24/02/2020, BO Journal from 07/02/2020 to 24/02/2020 and BO SB Journal from 14/02/2020 to 24/02/2020 of K Kallahalli BO thus violating Rule 123, Rule 124 read with Rule 133 of Rules for Branch Offices (Eighth edition) and the Instruction No.16 of "WHAT A BRANCH POSTMASTER SHOULD DO" and thereby failed to maintain absolute Integrity and devotion to duty contravening the provisions of Pule 21 of GDS Induct and Engagement) Rules 2020.
डाकघर अधी क / Supdt. Of Post Offices, ब ारी भाग, ब ारी-583102/Ballari Dn. Ballari-
583102."
8. Annexure - II along with the charge sheet shows the Statement of Imputation. It appears from the reading of the aforesaid document that when the default of applicant was found by the inspecting authority, at that time also the applicant admitted his guilt and he deposited the amount. The Statement of Imputation runs up to 5 pages. Each and Every detail is also mentioned of the aforesaid statement. It is transpired from the aforesaid document that at that time the applicant had also admitted default.
9. Looking to the aforesaid admission, the Inquiry Report (Annexure - A6) dated 05.03.2021 was submitted. The following portion of the aforesaid inquiry report is relevant: -
mikasha suneja mikasha CAT Bangalore 2024.12.03 suneja 17:16:14+05'30' 10 OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE "(B) Charges which were admitted / dropped or not pressed:
In the preliminary hearing held on 05.03.2021, the articles of charge levelled against him were read over to the CGDS, besides explaining the gist of the case in vernacular language and then the CGDS was specifically asked as to whether he admit or deny the charges levelled against him. At the same time the other facilites available to him in case of denial were also brought to his notice. In reply to this Sri. M. Chandrashekharayya, the CGDS admitted all the articles of charge i.e. Article I, II, III & IV contained SP, Ballari Memo No. BLR/F6/15/02-2020 dated 18.01.2021 leveled against him and requested for stopping the inquiry at this stage only. A letter presented by him to this effect was taken on record.
(C) Conclusion:
The CGDS has unconditionally admitted all the articles of the charges I, II, III & IV framed against him vide SP, Ballari Memo No. BLR/F6/15/02-2020 dated 18.01.2021 and requested to stop the inquiry at this stage itself. Thus I hold the Articles of charges I, II, III & IV levelled against Sri M. Chandrashekharayya GDS BPM (POD), Kallahalli BO, a/w Halavagalu SO under Hosapete HO as 'PROVED' due to his categorical and unconditional admittance."
10. It appears from the aforesaid quoted portion of the inquiry report that the inquiry officer also mentioned that in the preliminary hearing held on 05.03.2021 the applicant admitted the charges. "Preliminary inquiry" and "preliminary hearing" both are mikasha suneja mikasha CAT Bangalore 2024.12.03 suneja 17:16:14+05'30' 11 OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE different. When the Inquiry Officer and the Presentation Officer were appointed and the charge sheet was also served upon the applicant, thereafter, preliminary hearing was held on 05.03.2021 and upon the aforesaid date the applicant submitted Annexure - R1 in which he admitted the charges.
11. After perusal of the Inquiry report the competent authority passed the punishment order dated 21.04.2021 (Annexure - A7). In the aforesaid document, the following findings with the order are given: -
"FINDINGS I have carefully gone through the entire case file, connected records of the case, IO report dated 05/03/2021 and representation of charged GDS dated 22/03/2021.
The charged GDS BPM with a service of less than four years has committed irregularities in various categories such as misuse of office case, misappropriation of eMO amount received in the name of deceased payees, non-disbursement of withdrawal amount to the SB account holders, non-writing of BO records etc. The charged GDS BPM has mis-utilised the resources and channels of his position in the Department to his personal gain. He has not only deceived the trust of the public but also tarnished the image of the Department due to his manipulative acts.
mikasha suneja
mikasha CAT Bangalore
2024.12.03
suneja 17:16:14+05'30'
12
OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE The charged GDS BPM on receipt of memo charges has denied all the charges framed against him but during preliminary hearing held on 05/03/2021, he has admitted the charges unconditionally in writing before the Inquiring officer. In his representation to the IO report, he has stated that he admits the irregularities.
The irregularities committed by the charged GDS BPM in such a small period of time, deserves stringent action. Continuation of such a GDS in the Department is fraught with risk. Hence after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, admittance of the charged GDS BPM, I pass the following order for good and sufficient reason.
//ORDER// I, K Mahadevappa, Superintendent of Post Offices, Ballari Division, Ballari- 583102 do hereby order that Sri M Chandrashekarayya, GDS BPM (POD) K Kallahalli BO a/w Halavagalu SO be removed from engagement with immediate effect which shall not be a disqualification for future engagement."
12. The matter was also considered in an appeal. The applicant preferred an appeal on 17.05.2021 and by order (Annexure - A8) dated 09.08.2021 the appeal was dismissed. All points raised by the applicant have been considered by the appellate authority. In para 5 and 6 the appellate authority mentioned the above as under:-
"5. Parawise comments on the points raised b the appellant in his appeal dated 17.05.2021 are as follows-
mikasha suneja
mikasha CAT Bangalore
2024.12.03
suneja 17:16:14+05'30'
13
OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE i. He admits that he has committed lapses as elaborated by the Disciplinary Authority in the memo of charges, while discharging his duties and submits that he didn't had any intention to deceive the department or the public.
Averment of the appellant is not acceptable. He cannot say that he has no intentions to deceive either the Department or the public in as much as he has done so by his acts.
ii. That he was kept under POD for the mistakes committed which were only due to lack of experience and that he has undergone so much of pain during POD period. And that even his parents are suffering from pain for the mistakes committed by him.
Keeping a GDS under POD is part of prescribed procedure and that it is not a penalty. Penalty is followed by an oral inquiry and as such it was his responsibility to perform his duties with utmost honesty so that such situation wouldn't have arisen in his career / life. Perusal of charges itself makes it clear that those actions of misappropriation cannot be due to lack of experience. In short, his own actions are the reasons for his and his family member's sufferings.
iii. That he has realized and repenting for his mistakes and he has put forth his prayer to help him by forgiving his mistakes and reinstate him into service / engagement.
Misdemeanor on his part consists of keeping short of office cash (which is nothing but misappropriation), misappropriation in SB accounts, eMOs, non-writing of BO records, non-delivery of articles, retaining passbooks in his custody without cause etc. All these he has committed within a short span of service and reveals his integrity on financial matters and negligence in postal operations.
6. Considering all the aspects of the case along with concerned records, I pass the following-
mikasha suneja
mikasha CAT Bangalore
2024.12.03
suneja 17:16:14+05'30'
14
OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE ORDER I, M.B. Gajbhiye, Director Postal Services, South Karnataka Region, Bengaluru authorized to exercise the statutory powers of Director Postal Services, North Karnataka Region, Dharwad under the powers vested in me vide Rule 18 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020 hereby REJECT the Appeal dated 17.05.2021 preferred by Shri M. Chandrashekarayya, Ex GDS BPM, K. Kallahalli B.O. in a/w Halavagalu SO under Ballari Division against the penalty of removal from engagement imposed by Supt. Of Post Offices, Ballari Division, Ballari vide memo no. BLR/F6/ 15.02.2020 dated 21.04.2021."
13. The applicant preferred the revision (Annexure - A9) and by order dated 25.11.2022 (Annexure - A10), the competent authority also dismissed the revision and found that the punishment of removal for engagement was based upon the merits of the case and gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner.
14. Therefore, when the applicant himself admitted the charges then prima facie he does not have any right to challenge the punishment order.
15. The approach of the Courts, in dealing with cases of bank and Post office employees, who are responsible for doing the banking work or money transactions with General public, and mikasha suneja mikasha CAT Bangalore 2024.12.03 suneja 17:16:14+05'30' 15 OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE found accused of serious charges, is very different. The bank/Post- office officials are expected to discharge their duty with utmost integrity and honesty in view of the nature of their duties and functions, involving large financial transactions and public money. Courts deal with such employees with utmost strictness as they are expected to work with highest degree of trustworthiness. In respect of delinquent bank employees a distinct jurisprudence has developed.
16. In Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"14. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (1996) 9 SCC 69, it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent mikasha suneja mikasha CAT Bangalore 2024.12.03 suneja 17:16:14+05'30' 16 OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct."
17. In Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah v. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SCC 605, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"10. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable...."
18. In State Bank of India v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde, (2006) 7 SCC 212, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"21. Confronted with the facts and the position of law, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that leniency may be shown to the respondent having regard to long years of service rendered by the respondent to the Bank. We are unable to countenance with such submission. As already said, the respondent being a bank officer holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. The respondent was a Manager of the Bank and it needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the mikasha suneja mikasha CAT Bangalore 2024.12.03 suneja 17:16:14+05'30' 17 OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE bank officer so that the confidence of the public/depositors is not impaired. It is for this reason that when a bank officer commits misconduct, as in the present case, for his personal ends and against the interest of the bank and the depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands and he does not deserve to be dealt with leniently."
19. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Mohan Vs. Union of India and others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3392, said that in respect of delinquent bank employees a distinct jurisprudence has developed. The court relied upon aforesaid cases of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364, Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah v. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SCC 605, and State Bank of India v. Ramesh DinkarPunde, (2006) 7 SCC 212 and observed: -
"81. Therefore, the approach of the Court towards a bank employee against whom charges of serious financial misconduct has been proved by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, after a reasoned order based on material evidence, should not be lenient and must be dealt in a strict manner. Unless violation of principles of natural justice, inter alia, is said to have been proved by the Petitioner causing prejudice to the Petitioner in his defence, the Court should not interfere in the concurrent findings by the authorities below."
mikasha suneja mikasha CAT Bangalore 2024.12.03 suneja 17:16:14+05'30' 18 OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
20. Nature of work of post office and Bank is the same in relation to the money transactions. Thus, it is clear that no leniency can be shown to the post office or Bank employee when grave charges against him have been proved in the disciplinary proceedings. It has been held that courts do not interfere with quantum of punishment, unless there exists sufficient reasons. The punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be subjected to judicial review unless it shocks the conscience of the Court. In the case of State of Meghalaya and Others Vs Mecken Singh N. Marak, (2008) 7 SCC 580 = 2008(6) SLR 461 (SC) it has been held: -
"14. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The jurisdiction of the High Court, to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. The High Court, although has jurisdiction in appropriate case, to consider the question in regard to the quantum of punishment, but it has a limited role to play. It is now well settled that the High Courts, in exercise of powers under Article 226, do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefor. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. In the impugned order of the High Court no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate.
mikasha suneja
mikasha CAT Bangalore
2024.12.03
suneja 17:16:14+05'30'
19
OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice.
15. While considering the question of proportionality of sentence imposed on a delinquent at the conclusion of departmental enquiry, the court should also take into consideration, the mental set-up of the delinquent, the type of duty to be performed by him and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision-making process. If the charged employee holds the position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct, in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands."
21. Whether the punishment is not proper? For this purpose, the charges and the Statement of Imputation should be seen. It appears from the record that: -
(i) When the inspection was conducted on 21.02.2020, it was found that the cash of Rs. 1,220/- was in shortage.
(ii) Three money orders were received by the applicant each of Rs. 1,000/- and he showed to pay the aforesaid amount of money orders on 01.08.2019, 26.09.2019 & 04.11.2019 respectively to Shri Herya Naik, but before the aforesaid dates, payee had already expired on 22.07.2019. In the preliminary inquiry, the applicant also gave the statement that the money order mikasha suneja mikasha CAT Bangalore 2024.12.03 suneja 17:16:14+05'30' 20 OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE was not actually paid and the amount was utilised by the applicant for his personal need.
(iii) The applicant showing the withdrawal of Rs.
1,000/- on 21.08.2019, Rs. 1,000/- on 08.02.2020 and Rs. 1,200/- on 19.02.2020 but the aforesaid amount was not given to the concerned account holders. It is found that the applicant kept 74 Pass Books of the account holders. He obtained the signature upon SB-7 voucher and withdrew the amount but the actual amount was not paid to the concerned account holder. In some cases, he himself puts the forged signature of the account holder. During preliminary inquiry he admitted that on 08.02.2020 he himself put the forged signature of the account holder, Shri B Nagappa and utilised the same amount for his personal use.
(iv) The applicant did not write the BO account book w.e.f. 08.02.2020 to 24.02.2020, BO Journal w.e.f. 07.02.2020 to 24.02.2020 and BO SB Journal from 14.02.2020 to 24.02.2020.
22. Therefore, it appears that the applicant who was having only three years of service, but during this period, he showed negligence in his duty and did not write the concerned account books. He prepared the forged documents / signature and used the public money for his personal use. The cash was also found in mikasha suneja mikasha CAT Bangalore 2024.12.03 suneja 17:16:14+05'30' 21 OA.Nos.170/00095/2023/CAT/BANGALORE shortage. Therefore, in view of this Tribunal, looking to the overall conduct of the applicant, proper punishment of removal from service has been awarded.
23. Therefore, no any ground is found to interfere in the punishment order.
24. Hence, the OA is dismissed.
25. Both parties shall bear their own costs.
(DR SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ms/
mikasha suneja
mikasha CAT Bangalore
2024.12.03
suneja 17:16:14+05'30'