Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R Elavarasan vs M/O Communication & It on 28 June, 2024
1 OA No. 869/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00869/2015
Dated this, the 28th day of June, Two Thousand & Twenty Four
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, Member (A)
HON'BLE MR.M. SWAMINATHAN, Member (J)
R.Elavarasan, S/o. C. Ramasamy,
Pudupalli BO, a/w Vettaikaraniruppu SO,
Nagapattinam District. .....Applicant
By Advocate M/s. R. Malaichamy
Vs.
1.Union of India,
Rep by the Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Tiruchirappalli 620001.
2.Director of Postal Services,
Central Region (TN),
Tiruchirappalli 620001.
3.The Superintendent of Posts,
Nagapattinam Division,
Nagappattinam 611001. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. K. Rajendran
2 OA No. 869/2015
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member(A)) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-
"i. To call for the records of the 3rd respondent pertaining to the order removing the applicant from engagement made in memo No. F1/4-02/13-14 dated 29.04.2014, the order of 3nd respondent rejecting the appeal vide memo No. STC/3-19 dated 07.10.20414 and the order of 1st respondent rejecting the review petition vide memo No. STC/4-18/2014 dated 08.01.2015 and set aside the same, consequent to;
ii. Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits; and iii. To pass such further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case."
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the Applicant, are as follows, in brief:-
2.1. The Applicant was issued charge sheet, dated 11.12.2013 (A-1), by the 3rd Respondent, under Rule 10 of the GDS (C & E) Rules, 2011. It has been alleged that the applicant returned the passbook and the withdrawal form to the messenger of the depositor, on 23.02.2013, for want of another signature of the depositor for attesting the signature of the messenger. This resulted in payment of excess amount of Rs. 83,407/-. The said messenger again presented the withdrawal form and took payment on 26.02.2013. On the said date, the applicant was on leave. The allegation made in Article - II 3 OA No. 869/2015 is the proof that the applicant was on leave on 26.02.2013 and he did not sanction or allow withdrawal of amount to the messenger of the depositor.
2.2. The 2nd charge is that the applicant absented himself from duty for 4 days, from 25.02.2013 to 28.02.2013.
2.3. An inquiry was conducted on 24.02.2014. The applicant, during regular inquiry, at the preliminary stage of sitting, admitted both the charges.
In the OA, however, the applicant has taken a different stand. In respect to his admission, he says, it does not mean that he has failed to verify the amount, when the amount was sanctioned, and paid to the messenger on 26.02.2013. Hence, he was not responsible for the sanction of the withdrawal amount on 26.02.2013, when he was on leave. 2.4. He further states that the admission of the applicant regarding return of passbook and withdrawal form was read differently by the Inquiry Officer who submitted his report, dated 26.02.2014, stating that the charges levelled against the applicant were proved.
2.5. The applicant has argued that there was no allegation that the applicant misappropriated the funds of the Department or of the depositor. There was also no allegation that the applicant had allowed the withdrawal amount on 26.02.2013 to the messenger of the depositor. The period of absence from duty of 4 days from 25.02.2013 to 28.02.2013 was regularized 4 OA No. 869/2015 by the authority. But, without considering these facts, the 3rd Respondent removed the applicant from service by an order, dated 29.04.2014 (A-4). 2.6. The applicant preferred his appeal, dated 11.07.2014. It was rejected by the 2nd Respondent by an order, dated 07.10.2014. The review petition, dated 10.11.2014, was rejected by the 1st Respondent by an order, dated 08.01.2015. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA. 3.1. The learned counsel for the respondents entered appearance and filed a detailed reply. He drew our attention to the lapses on the part of the applicant which led to the issuance of charge memo under Rule 10 of the GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011. Article - I was that the applicant, while working as GDS BPM, Pudupalli BO a/w Vettaikaraniruppu SO, accepted the passbook and withdrawal form for Rs.1,93,000/- of Savings Account No.496025 of Pudupalli BO a/w Vettaikaraniruppu SO, in the name of Smt. S. Krishnammal, tendered at his office through a messenger on 23.02.2013, and put his initials and made date stamp impression, but did not verify the balance available in the passbook and withdrawal form/SB journal. Then, he returned the passbook and the withdrawal form to the messenger, for want of another signature of the depositor for attesting the signature of the messenger. This resulted in payment of excess amount of Rs.83,407/-. Thus, the applicant violated the provisions of Rule 133 (2) & (5) of the Rules for Branch Offices, 6th edition (2nd Reprint) and, thereby, failed to 5 OA No. 869/2015 maintain devotion to duty, as required of him, vide Rule 21 of the Department of Post, GDS (Conduct And Engagement) Rules, 2011. 3.2. He further submitted that, as per Article II, the applicant, while working as above, absented himself from duty for 4 days, from 25.02.2013 to 28.02.2013, without submitting any leave application and getting prior approval from the ASP, Nagapattinam Sub Division, and allowed one Smt. V. Selvamathy, outsider, to work in his place. Thus, it was imputed that the applicant was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 25.02.2013 to 28.02.2013 and, thereby, failed to maintain devotion to duty, as required vide Rule 21 of the Department of Posts, GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.
3.3. He contended that, during the preliminary hearing, held on 24.02.2014, the applicant admitted the above two charges and, hence, the Inquiry Officer held the charges as proved beyond doubt. A copy of the Inquiry Officer's report was sent to the applicant by the 3 rd Respondent on 26.02.2014, requesting him to send his representation, if any, within 15 days. Accordingly, the applicant made representation, dated 14.03.2014, admitting the two charges framed against him. Then, vide memo, dated 29.04.2014, of the 3rd respondent, he was awarded the penalty of 'Removal from Engagement'.
6 OA No. 869/20153.4. He further contended that, against the punishment of removal, the applicant made an appeal, dated 11.07.2014, to the 2nd Respondent. The same was rejected, vide order, dated 07.10.2014, by upholding the punishment of removal from engagement, imposed by the disciplinary authority. Subsequently, the applicant made a revision petition to the 1st Respondent. The same was disposed of, vide order, dated 08.01.2015, by upholding the orders of the Disciplinary Authority. It was contended that highly serious irregularities were committed by the applicant and were also admitted during the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer, and, thus, the punishment imposed by the 3rd Respondent was in order, and it was also confirmed by the 2nd and the 1st Respondents. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. The applicant has filed a rejoinder contesting the reply statement filed by the respondents.
5.1. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the Rule 10 Inquiry was completed with the preliminary sitting, taking the admission of the applicant as granted, without following the principles of natural justice. The IO report, prepared on the day of the preliminary sitting itself, became pointless as there was no Presenting Officer Brief or Defence Brief. This was not considered by the respondents. He further contended that, so far as the allegation under Article - 1 of the charge memo is concerned, the lapse 7 OA No. 869/2015 on the part of the applicant is not verifying the balance in the office records which had caused excess payment of Rs.83,407/-. The applicant has admitted his lapses, but for this a major punishment of removal from engagement is imposed on the applicant, which is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.
5.2. He further contended that, in Article - I of the charge, it has been stated that the applicant has returned the pass book and the withdrawal form to the messenger for want of another signature of the depositor for attesting the signature of the messenger. From this, it is evident that, on 23.02.2013, the applicant did not allow withdrawal of any amount to the depositor, namely, Smt. S. Krishnammal. Therefore, imposing major punishment of removal from service is arbitrary and illegal.
5.3. He further contended that, with reference to Article - II of the charge memo, the applicant had, in fact, applied for leave for 4 days from 25.02.2013 to 28.02.2013, and arranged a substitute, Smt. V. Selvamathi, in his place, as per the provisions of the GDS Rules, to look after his duties, in anticipation of approval by higher authorities, since he had to deal with an important domestic problem on those days. The 3 rd respondent was very much aware of the said fact. Hence, imposing major punishment on the applicant is unjustifiable.
8 OA No. 869/20155.4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the penalty imposed by the 3rd respondent and upheld by the 2nd and 1st respondents appears to be too harsh and not commensurate with the allegations of (i) non verification of pass book balance, and, (iii) availing leave of 4 days without prior permission. Hence, the order of the respondents is liable to be set aside and prayed for the relief sought for.
6. Respondents have also filed their reply to the rejoinder.
7. We have heard both sides and perused the pleadings and materials on record.
8. Both the Articles of charge have been already mentioned above and are not being repeated here, for the sake of brevity. The Rule 10 enquiry started and ended on the date notified, ie., on 24.02.2014, when the CO attended the Preliminary Hearing. The relevant portions of the order sheet, dt. 24.02.2014, are extracted below:-
" .....The said Charged GDS admitted the two articles of charges framed against him in Annexure-I & II of the memo cited above, UNEQUIVOCALLY, UNCONDITONALLY WITHOUT ANY RESERVATION.
.....
The Charged GDS has also submitted a separate letter today to the IO admitting the two charges mentioned above UNEQUIVOCALLY, UNCONTITIONALLY WITHOUT ANY RESERVATION.
In view of the unconditional admission of all the two charges levelled against the said Charged Government Servant in Annexure-I & II of the charge 9 OA No. 869/2015 sheet memo cited above, by the said Charged GDS the inquiry is concluded in the Preliminary stage itself.
In view of the admission of all the charges by charged GDS, there is no PO Brief.
With this the entire proceedings in this case came to end."
9. Thereafter, the I.O. submitted his Inquiry Report, dt. 24.02.2014, holding the charges "PROVED BEYOND ANY DOUBT, by the said Charged GDS's, OWN ADMISSION". The DA removed the applicant from engagement, vide his order, dt. 29.04.2014. The D.A has held him "fully responsible for the lapses/mistake committed by the outsider", viz., the substitute whom he had engaged in his place when he proceeded on "leave" without any formal leave of absence. The order of punishment (A4) concludes as follows -
" CGDS violated the provision of rules on acceptance of withdrawal which in turn resulted in payment of excess amount of Rs. 83407/- and he allowed one outsider to work in his place on said period by himself unauthorisedly absent from duty. It is felt that the action of CGDS were grave nature of negligence of duty. If these negligence are not dealt properly, then it would become illustration for others for committing serious lapses of such kind. Therefore I do not find any reason to show sympathy on the charge GDS. The attitude of charged official warrants deterrent punishment. Accordingly ORDER I R. Kunjithapatham, Superintendent of Post Offices, Nagapattinam Division Nagapattinam hereby order that Shri.R. Elavarasan, GDSBPM(POD), Pudupalli BO a/w Vettaikaraniruppu S.O. be Removed from Engagement with immediate effect."10 OA No. 869/2015
His appeal and Revision Petition have been rejected and the punishment awarded by the DA has been upheld/confirmed.
10. It is in the Appeal, dt. 11.07.2014, that we find his defence and his prayer to the Appellate Authority -
"I have no hesitation in accepting both the Articles of charge. I have again and again elaborated the circumstances of lapses; those were committed inadvertently and without aiming any intention. Moreover, the loss to the exchequer on account of minus balance in the SB pass book was also made good by the depositor In this situation the penalty awarded by the Disciplinary Authority appears too harsh and disproportionate to the offence. Due to the sudden and unexpected ouster from the Department my family life becomes gloom and entire family put in to lurch, lacking any source of regular income to feed."
The CO is regretful and has accepted his lapses. But, neither the IO nor the DA have imputed any corrupt motive to him.
11. While the scope for judicial interference in matters of disciplinary proceedings is very limited for the Courts/Tribunals, perversity in procedure and lack of proportionality of punishment are valid grounds for judicial scrutiny and intervention.
12. The points of recklessness in handling of the withdrawal form and unauthorized absence and placing a substitute without written authorization certainly weigh against the delinquent, but, in making the punishment deterrent, the DA, the Appellate and the Revisionary Authorities have lost sight of highly disproportionate quantum of punishment.
13. Another pertinent point, made by the Applicant, is that, 11 OA No. 869/2015 "7. It is submitted that the Applicant availed leave from 25.02.2013 to 28.02.2012. He has engaged Smt. Selvamathy as his substitute. With regard to withdrawal of amount of Rs. 5000/- and above from S.B account, the sanction of Sub-Postmaster, is necessary as per Rules.
8. Therefore, without the knowledge of the Applicant, the said messenger Shri. R.Palsamy approached one Sri. G.Panneerselvam, GDS MD/MC of the very same branch office i.e., Pudupalli B.O and they both approached Shri.R.Rameshkumar, Sub-Postmaster(SPM), Vettaikaraniruppu S.O for sanction of the amount to withdraw in the a/c of Smt. S.Krishnammal and they obtained such sanction from him. The contents in the statement of imputations of misconduct under Annexure-II in the charge memo dated 11.12.2013 is the evidence for the same."
14. In this regard, we find it curious that for disciplinary action against Sh. R. Rameshkumar, then SPM, Vettaikaraniruppu SO, now PA (U/S), Nagapattinam HO, charge memo was issued to him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, on the following allegations :-
" Article I:
Shri R. Rameshkumar, PA (U/S), Nagapattinam HO while working as SPM, Vettaikaraniruppu SO under Nagapattinam HO, during the period from 18.02.2013 to 18.03.2013, passed the warrant of withdrawal of the Savings account No.496025 of Pudupalli BO a/w Vettaikaraniruppu SO standing open in the name of Smt S. Krishnammal, 4/639 Pudupalli East tendered at his office through messenger, on 25.02.13, for Rs. 1,93,000/- without verifying the balance available in the passbook and 5.0. ledger copy in the system which resulted in payment of excess amount to the depositor amounting to minus balance of Rs.83407/- in the said account.
Thus it is imputed that the said Shri R. Rameshkumar has failed to observe the provisions of Rule 33 (7) (i) of POSB Manual Volume I (second edition) as amended vide SB order No.19/2009 dated 14.12.2009 and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty as required of him in Rule 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article II:
Shri R. Rameshkumar, PA (U/S), Nagapattinam HO while working as SPM Vettaikaraniruppu SO under Nagapattinam HO from 18.2.13 did not 12 OA No. 869/2015 maintain SB 45 register and hence he did not make any entry in the register about the receipt of withdrawal application and warrant passed by him in respect of SB account No.496025 of Pudupalli BO a/w Vettaikaraniruppu S.O. standing open in the name of Smt. S. Krishnammal tendered at his office through messenger for Rs.193000/- on 25.2.13.
Thus it is imputed that the said Shri R. Rameshkumar has failed to observe the provisions of Rule 33 (7) (ii) of POSB Manual Volume 1 (second edition) as amended vide SB order No.19/2009 dated 14.12.2009 and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty as required of him in Rule 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article III:
Shri R. Rameshkumar, PA (U/S), Nagapattinam HO while working as SPM. Vettaikaraniruppu SO under Nagapattinam HO, during the period from 18.02.2013 to 18.03.2013, while feeding the BO data of Pudupalli BO, made part III deposit of Rs.86000/-, on 26.02.13 evening, by manipulating in the system for the previous date in the SB account No.496025 without getting intimation from Head Post Office to tally the minus balance that arose in the account to the tune of Rs.83407/- consequent on withdrawal of excess amount allowed in that account.
Thus it is imputed that the said Shri R. Rameshkumar has failed to observe the provisions of Rule 9 (ii) of Appendix I of POSB Manual Vol I (second edition) and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of him in Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964." (emphasis added)
15. Sh. R. Rameshkumar submitted his representation, dt. 13.11.2013, admitting the charges and negligence on his part. The order, dt. 11.06.2014, concludes as follows :-
" Now after considering the records of inquiry, facts circumstances of the cases, representation of charged official, the undersigned has come to a conclusion that Shri.R. Rameshkumar is guilty. The charged official has accepted his charges and stated that due to ignorance of rules, the lapses occurred and prays excuse assuring to guard against such lapses in future. Considering his initial service and realization of mistake, I decide to be lenient. Accordingly, 13 OA No. 869/2015 ORDER I, R. Kunjithapatham, Superintendent of Post Offices, Nagapattinam Division, Nagapattinam 611001 hereby order that "the pay of Shri.R. Rameshkumar, Postal Assistant, Nagapattinam HO be reduced by two stages from Rs.8440/- + GP 2400/- to Rs.7810/- + GP 2400/- in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200 with GP 2400/- for a period of one year with effect from 01.07.2014. It is further ordered that Shri.R. Rameshkumar, PA, Nagapattinam HO will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and this reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay"."
16. We are firmly of the view that the principle laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution has to be followed, as decided by the Supreme Court in Sengara Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1984 1 LLJ 161), wherein, while considering the issue of discrimination in meting out punishment to police personnel involved in similar acts, it was held that "the action taken by the Government is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution i.e., any arbitrary action taken which would tantamount to the denial of equity is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."
17. The gravity of charges against Shri. R. Rameshkumar, the then SPM, is clearly much higher than that in the charges against the applicant. Considering his apology and admission, the then SPM has been awarded the punishment of reduction of pay by two stages, for a period of one year, with effect on future increments. The applicant, a much lower functionary, charged with negligence, and not with manipulation in the system at the office, as was found in the case of the SPM, has been sacked from service. 14 OA No. 869/2015 This cannot be ignored by this Tribunal, as it is blatant discrimination between the two employees. The punishment awarded to the GDS is also apparently highly disproportionate.
18. It is, therefore, ordered as follows :-
i. The impugned orders, dt. 29.04.2014, 07.10.2014 & 08.01.2015, are quashed and set aside;
ii. The applicant shall be reinstated into service forthwith;
iii. Punishment awarded to the applicant shall not be more than the punishment awarded to Shri. R. Rameshkumar.
19. In the above terms, the OA is allowed. Order above shall be carried out within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(M. Swaminathan) (Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi)
Member (J) Member (A)
28.06.2024
SKSI