Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Shri Sailendra Nath Mohanty vs Union Of India Represented Through Its ... on 19 October, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH: CUTTACK
O.A. No.207 of 2008
Cuttack, this the 19th day of October, 2010
C O R A M
THE HONBLE MR.M.R.MOHANTY, VICE-CHAIRMAN (J)
AND
THE HONBLE MR.C.R.MOHAPATRA, MEMBER (A)
Shri Sailendra Nath Mohanty, Aged about 40 years, Son of late Jogendra Nath
Mohanty, a permanent resident of Village/Post. Kapaleswar, Dist. Kendrapara, Ex-
Postal Assistant, Pattamundai Mukhya Dak Ghar under Kendrapara HO,
Kendrapara, Orissa. . Applicant
By legal practitioner: M/s. G.Rath, R.N.Mishra, D.K.Mohanty, S.Rath, Counsel.
-Versus-
1. Union of India represented through its Director General of Posts, Government of
India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-
110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda, Pin-751
001.
3. The Director of Postal Services (HQ), O/o. the Chief Postmaster General, Orissa
Circle, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda, Pin-753 001.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack North Division, Cantonment Road,
Cuttack, Pin-753 001. . Respondents
By legal practitioner: M/s. U.B.Mohapatra, SSC
..
O R D E R
MR. C.R.MOHAPATRA, MEMBER (ADMN.):
The Applicant in this Original Application filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 assails the Disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, the report of the IO dated 5.7.2004 (Annexure-A/3 ), the order of punishment dated 26.10.2007 (Annexure-A/5) and the order of the appellate authority dated 01/05.02.2008 (Annexure- A/8) with prayer to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to take him back to service with all consequential service and financial benefits retrospectively. The grounds set forth in support of the above prayers by the Applicant are as under:
(a) He was posted at Namouza SO from 05.08.1996. He proceeded on leave from 19.04.2000 to 24.04.2000. He had never been posted to Iswarpur SO from 10.06.2000 to 27.06.2000 and from 02.02.2001 to 16.02.2001 and to Olaver SO from 07.12.1999 to 23.12.1999 during which period the fraud in Post Office Money Order had allegedly occurred;
(b) As per Rule 4 (2) of Postal Manual Vol. Vi, Pt.1, a Nominal Roll is maintained in each post office to show the change in duty of clerical staff. It is a permanent record as per Rule 25 of Postal Manual ibid which serves as a record of Assistants actually at work on any given day. SW-6 confirmed its maintenance during enquiry. He specifically denied the applicants holding of temporary charge of SPM Namuza SO besides denying the deputation of the applicant outside to Iswarpur or Olaver SOs. Repeated insistence of the applicant during enquiry, the same was not produced in enquiry. Had it been produced/supplied, it could have proved straightaway the incumbency of applicant. It is the cardinal principle that in absence of structure, superstructure is unimaginable. Therefore, without proving the incumbency in any of the SOs imposition of punishment is bad in law;
(c) He had sought production of the order book/error book of Namauza, Iswarpur and Olaver SOs. As per Rule 50 (b) and 50-A of Postal Manual Vol. VI, Pt-1 temporary arrangements made in absence of assistants are shown in the postmasters order book (error book). It is the specific allegation of the department that the applicant was disturbed from his original post of Postal Assistant to hold the temporary charge of SPM, Namuza, Iswarpur and Olaver SOs. He had specified denied of holding the charge of SPM of Namuza, Iswarpur and Olaver SOs. This was also corroborated by the statements adduced by SPM/SW-6 of Namauza SO with reference to the Namauza error book. Hence, before proceeding further in the enquiry, the IO ought to have located the root of the matter. As such, in absence of such documents the entire proceedings are vitiated;
(d) As per rule 20 of Postal Manual, Vol. VI, Pt.II, MO issue lists received from sub offices including Namouza Iswarpur and Olaver after being compiled in HO in a Register are incorporated into A/C. Similarly MO issue receipts received from SOs are maintained in the Index Register to watch their genuineness of issue in chronological order (as the HO supplies the MO receipt Books to SOs). The MO issue lists and receipts produced from the HO are Xerox copies and the postmaster SW- 2 exhibiting them denied to have dealt with them or have any knowledge about their accounting. The Original Registers with repeated requests was neither called for nor produced in the enquiry;
(e) Prejudice for non-supply of pivotal/vital documents needs no elaboration as the IO before proving the basic thing of incumbency, with oblique motive being pressurized went ahead with the enquiry and held the charge proved without proving the incumbency of Applicant in the post offices;
(f) Right to claim silence is a fundamental right available to every citizen. Despite existence of instruction No.6/67/64- Disc. Dated 23rd June, 1977 which provides that in so far as the P & T Department is concerned a case involving loss of substantial public funds a report should be lodged with the police as soon as the case comes to notice and departmental enquiry should not be held simultaneously with the police enquiries except to the extent permitted by the police. The question of taking departmental action in such case would arise after either completion of police enquiries or after the process of prosecution in a Court of law have been completed. . If however, it is desired to conduct departmental enquiries simultaneously with police enquiries or to take departmental action wherever feasible before the case is taken up for prosecution by the police, the matter should be decided after consultation with the police authorities the Respondents intentionally and deliberately proceeded with the departmental enquiry during the pendency of the criminal case on the self same grounds;
(g) The IO, DA as well as Appellate Authority failed to conduct the enquiry/pass the final orders in due application of mind, in adhering to Rules and audi alterm partem. Hence discharge of duty being contrary to law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Nazir Ahmad v King Emperor, AIR 1936 Privy Council 253 (2)) in which it was held that Rule which applies is that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden, the entire proceeding is liable to be set aside;
(h) There has been gross violation of the rules and judge made laws in conducting the enquiry and passing the order by the DA and AA;
(i) Additional documents though asked for by the applicant during enquiry were neither produced by the prosecution nor requisitioned by the IO from the authority custodians of the said documents. Those documents were most important and vital for surfacing the truth of the matter. Instead of requisitioning the said documents during enquiry from the custodian, the enquiry officer in gross violation of the rules, has unnecessarily dragged the disciplinary authority into the picture through his letter dated 25.10.2002 with direction to the applicant to endorse copy to PO vide order sheet dated 11.09.2002 and ultimately, the same was not produced and thereby the applicant was highly prejudiced in defending his case before the IO whereas the IO as per the settled principle instead of drawing adverse inference came to the conclusion that the applicant had committed gross irregularity/illegality which is far from truth and against the Rules;
(j) Statements of SW-6, SW-7 and SW-8 recorded during enquiry, clearly established that the applicant was not in charge of the offices in question, yet the enquiry officer held the applicant guilty. Therefore, the findings/conclusion reached by the IO was without evidence; more so when the happenings were not during the incumbency of the applicant.
(k) Shri Niranjan Sahoo, Postmaster, Chandinichowk Letter (S.1) was produced unattested (Xerox copy) which letter was in fact addressed to and received by the Superintendent of Post Offices City Division, Cuttack who is not the Disciplinary Authority of the Applicant. Though the said letter was not cited as one of the documents, the IO took cognizance on the same without supplying copy thereof to the applicant. Law is well settled that in disciplinary proceedings, unless the author of a document is examined, no cognizance would be taken on the said document. But in the instant case a novel procedure was adopted by the IO in taking cognizance on the said letter in holding the charges proved; without calling upon the author of the document to be examined in spite of repeated requests during enquiry by the applicant and, thereby the applicant was highly prejudiced to know the veracity of such documents.
(l) The evidences of SW 2, the Postmaster, Kendrapara, SW.9 the Senior Accounts Officer and SW.10 the Office Assistant, Cuttack North Division office were completely speculative and based on surmises as they joined office much later the events allegedly occurred. Having no knowledge about the facts, they are not material witnesses and, therefore, the IO ought not to have attached importance on their statement in finding the applicant guilty of the charges whereas declaring some of the PWs hostile as they did not succumb to the falsehood. The IO did not take into consideration the statements recorded during enquiry, cross examination and reexamination. On harmonious reading of the statements recorded vis-`-vis the report of the IO, it would be evident that the IO reached the findings out of the records. Based on such report, the applicant ought not to have been punished.
(m) The disciplinary proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings. The IO ought not to have taken into consideration the facts which are not admitted during recording of statements or something which are not proved. From the entire report, it would be seen that the IO had only recorded the facts beyond the records and held the charges proved. No discussions about the statements recorded charges framed documents produced and questioned have been taken care of although provided in the rules;
(n) The report of the IO is no report in the eyes of law; as the same was not prepared in accordance with Sub rule 23 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. This rule clearly provides that the report of the IO must contain the following:
(i) the articles of charge and the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour;
(ii) the defence of the Government servant in respect of each article of charge;
(iii) an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge;
(iv) the findings on each article of charge and reasons thereof.
(o) Rule 15 (1-B) of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 clearly provides that the disciplinary authority shall consider the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant before proceeding further in the manner specified in sub rules (2) to (4). But no such consideration was given to the representation of Applicant and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment on the applicant by reproducing verbatim the report of the IO which is proved to be a non- application of mind;
(p) Page-9 paragraph 8 of the order of punishment would go to show that before discussing the points raised by applicant, the Disciplinary Authority made up his mind by stating that the allegation of applicant is routine manner. At first instance he has concluded by stating that there is no violation of principles of natural justice and reasonable opportunity was given during oral hearing. This itself is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the disciplinary authority was biased against the applicant and therefore, the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
(q) The Disciplinary Authority ordered that as per the Rules the charge report is sufficient to prove that the applicant was in work during the period in question. The charge report and Division Office letters relied on by the prosecution were disputed documents not authenticated by persons who dealt with them. SW 4 and SW 10 who identified them denied their connection in regard to their issue, dispatch, receipt, maintenance, preparation and dealing in cross examination.
The SW. 6 the SPM, Namouza denied the receipt of the divisional office letters S.66, S.67 and S.68 or took action in relieving the CO in cross examination at page 5 of deposition and denied relief of the CO from 1998 to 2002. Hence the conclusion reached by the DA is based on no evidence.
(r) The charge reports in respect of Iswarpur and Olaver SOs, S.28 to S.31 were not proved through persons who exchanged them i.e. K.K.Mohanty and G.S.Mahala nor they were produced during enquiry. The charge report though exchanged between SPM was irregularly counter signed and date stamped as per SW.10. Charge report can be exchanged several times in a day and hence, it is not a document to prove ones incumbency but nominal roll and office order book are the appropriate documents instead to prove ones continuance/incumbency against a post (as per rule and as per statement of SW.4, SW.6 and SW.10 as deposed in cross examination). Having not done so, the proceeding is liable to be set aside;
(s) Before reaching the conclusion, the handwriting on the MO receipts MO paid vouchers SO accounts book of three SOs for the alleged periods, were not sent to the hand writing experts/GEQD in spite of requests of the defence counsel of the applicant. The hand writing of the applicant on the said documents were denied by SW.6 and SW 10. Two ED officials of Iswarpur SO (SW.7 & SW.8) denied the working of applicant as SPM of Iswarpur SO during the alleged period. Moreover, the date of the charge report does not coincide with the date of assumption of the charges i.e. on 8.12.1999. By adopting the preponderance of probability a common man also cannot reach the conclusion what has been reached by the IO and DA. Hence, neither the report of IO nor the order of DA are sustainable in the litmus test of judicial scrutiny which was disproved by the handwriting experts as would be evident from the order in GR Case;
(t) The reason of equating reasonable opportunity with recognized rules of natural justice is that it cannot be left to the vagaries of each individual officer in his subjective decision, since that would introduce a thousand shadows of reasonableness which may not be permitted. The report of the IO is like proving existence of branches without any root of a tree. Non-production of the above documents enabled the IO to reach a wrong conclusion as wrong question is bound to lead to wrong answer. Hence, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed.
(u) Though the above points were raised by the applicant in his earlier OA and in his appeal, the appellate authority in ignoring the directions of this Tribunal to pass a reasoned order rejected the Appeal of the Applicant without disclosing any reason. No personal hearing was also allowed to applicant though prayed for which necessarily allowed the authority to reach wrong conclusion. The minimum requirement of natural justice demands that before passing any order adversely affecting a party, he should be given an opportunity of being heard. It is not only the procedure prescribed, but also to meet the challenge of Article l4 of the constitution. As such there was gross violation of natural justice. In this connection he has relied on the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Rushi Guman Singh v State of Orissa and others reported in 2009(2) SLR 390;
(v) The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal without meeting/answering issues raised and without giving any reason. Hence by applying the ratio of the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Bhartesh C.Jain and others v Shoaib Ullah and Another, (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 616, Vishnu Dev Sharma v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 596, the order of the Appellate Authority is not sustainable;
(w) The order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority is a non-speaking and contrary to the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Sher Bahadur v Union of India and others, 2002 SCC (L&S) 1028;
(x) The Appellate authority took note of the preliminary enquiry report, without obtaining as to whether such preliminary report formed part of the charge sheet and as to whether copy of the same was ever supplied to applicant. Hence, rejection of appeal by placing reliance on some documents without supplying copy thereof amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.
(y) The report of the IO was based on conjecture and surmises. As such order passed based on such report is void. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of H.C.Goel v UOI and others AIR 1964 SC 364 in which it was held by their Lordships that however grave suspicion may be that cannot be proved in domestic enquiry. Accordingly, the applicant prayed to quash the report of the IO and all other consequential orders;
(z) There was no proving of credit and debit. As such payment of the alleged money order does not arise. Hence loss is imaginary.
(aa) MO paid vouchers Exbt. S.2, 3, 25, 40 to 42, does not bear the signature of PA and SPM, Cage denoting not above rupees. There was no signature of sender. Without name stamp and number noted on it. These do not bear the signature of the supervisor receiving the MO. The Divisional Office letter S.66 to S.68 were denied to have been received by SPM, Namouza, SW-6 or issued by SW 10. Signature has been disproved by handwriting experts. As such imposition of punishment is highly illegal, arbitrary, hit by article 14 and 16 of the constitution.
(ab) It is a clear case of no evidence.
(ac) On the self same allegation and supporting documents and witnesses, he has been acquitted in the criminal case. As such, by application of law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the cases of G.M.Tank v Union of India and others, 2006 (4) SLR 10, order of this Tribunal dated 851 of 2005 in OA No. 851 of 2005 (Raj Kumar Bag v Union of India and others confirmed by the Honble High Court of Orissa in WP ( C) No.1130 of 2008 dated 09-09-2008, the order of punishment is liable to be set aside.
2. Respondents filed their counter. The substance of the stand of the Respondents in their counter are that (i) Applicant while working as SPM Namouza SO Iswarpur SO and Olaver SO in the capacity of Sub Post Master issued high value bogus Money orders to his relatives, LIC authorities etc. Fraud having been detected the applicant was placed under suspension w.e.f. 19.4.2001; (ii) vide order dated 19.8.2002 IO was appointed who submitted its report on 22.10.2004 holding all the charges proved; (iii) Copy of enquiry report was given to applicant inviting his reply. He submitted his reply dated 31.12.2005; (iv) Since charges in both criminal as well as departmental proceedings were same the matter was referred to competent authority seeking clarification for passing final orders in disciplinary proceedings. On receipt clarification that as per the GI Dept. of Per & Training OM dated 01.08.2007 stay of disciplinary proceedings is not a must, final order of punishment retiring the applicant compulsorily was passed by the disciplinary authority on 26.10.2007; (v) Challenging the said order, applicant preferred OA No. 438 of 2007 before this Tribunal. This Tribunal disposed of the OA on 02.11.2007 directing to treat the copy of the OA to be an appeal against the order of punishment dated 26.10.2007 and pass reasoned order as per rules and communicate the result thereof to the Applicant; (vi) The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 01/05.02.2008; (vii) The applicant without preferring any representation/petition to next higher authority approached this Tribunal;
(viii) As per Rules the Post Masters Order Book is a record maintained in Head Office and not in Time Scale Sub Post Offices like Namouiza, Olaver and Iswarpur etc. The nominal roll of clerical staff is maintained to serve as a record of the clerks at work on any given day. This should be written up by the postmaster whenever a change either temporary or permanent is made to the duty of any member of the clerical staff. But it has no applicability in time scale SOs like Namouza Iswarpur and Olaver SO. The IO considering the relevancy allowed only those additional documents which has relevancy with the case; (ix) The Applicant was provided with all reasonable opportunity during entire departmental proceedings. Taking all the facts into consideration the IO submitted its report finding the applicant guilty to the charges. The GR case is still pending disposal; (x) There is no provision for personal hearing to be provided either by the DA or by the Appellate Authority before passing orders in Rule 14 proceedings and (xi) There are no procedural lapses in the matter of starting the proceedings till final order passed by the Appellate Authority. In stating so, the Respondents have prayed for dismissal of this OA.
3. In the rejoinder, the applicant more or less reiterated the same stand as taken in his Original Application.
4. Heard Mr.G.Rath, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. U.B.Mohapatra, Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Department and perused the materials placed on record.
5. Mr. Rath, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents drawing our attention to the charges in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case as well as documents and witnesses cited in support thereof, has pointed out that as the applicant has been acquitted in the criminal case, by application of the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the case of G.M.Tank (supra) and the order of this Tribunal dated 851 of 2005 in OA No. 851 of 2005 (Raj Kumar Bag v Union of India and others confirmed by the Honble High Court of Orissa in WP (C) No.1130 of 2008 dated 09-09-2008, the punishment imposed on the applicant is liable to be set aside. He has also taken us through various provisions in the postal manual to state non-production of documents and imposition of punishment without proving the incumbency of the applicant vitiates the proceedings. Mr. Mohapatra, Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents by producing copies of the charge report and service book of the Applicant has endeavoured to prove that the allegation of the applicant that he had never worked in that SOs is far from truth. He has contended that the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment after due application of mind by taking into consideration the report of the IO vis- `-vis the reply submitted by the Applicant and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority there is hardly any scope for this Tribunal to interfere in the matter. On the other hand, Mr. Rath, Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant by placing reliance on the relevant rules submitted that recording in the service book cannot be taken to be authenticated in absence of the signature of the applicant and that the service book was not produced during the enquiry. In view of the above, Mr. Rath, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant vehemently prayed for setting aside the order of punishment.
6. It is trite law that Courts/Tribunal can interfere in the disciplinary proceedings and in the order of punishment imposed thereby on an employee if the decision is illegal or suffers from procedural improprieties or is one which no sensible decision-maker could, on the materials before him and within the frame work of the law, have arrived at. The Courts/Tribunal would consider whether relevant matters had not been taken into account or whether irrelevant matters had been taken into account or whether the action was not bona fide. The Court/Tribunal would also consider whether the decision was absurd or perverse. The Court would not however go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator amongst the various alternatives open to him; nor could the Court/Tribunal substitute its decision to that of the administrator (Ref: Union of India and another v G.Ganayutham (death)) by LRs, AIR 1997 SC 3387. Keeping the parameters set apart by the Honble Apex Court, in mind, it is to be examined as to whether the findings arrived at by the IO based on which the Disciplinary Authority imposed the order of punishment of Compulsory retirement which was, subsequently, confirmed by the Appellate Authority was justified; whether Rules/procedures were properly followed and whether opportunity was afforded to the applicant to prove his innocence starting from the enquiry till the order of appellate authority. In the case of Pandit D.Aher v State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 299 it was held by the Apex Court that copy of document which has not been relied upon, is not required to be supplied to delinquent. Only those documents in which reliance placed need be supplied. It has further been held by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Government of A.P. and others v A.Venkata Raidu, (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 254 that if any material is sought to be used in an enquiry, copy thereof should be supplied to the party against whom such enquiry is being held. Above being the fact and position of law, we find no reason to hold that non-supply of any document or preliminary enquiry report to the applicant, proceeding is vitiated in any manner. The Applicant has not stated elaborately as to how he was prejudiced due to non-supply of some of the unlisted additional documents. Unless prejudice is shown or proved, plea of violation of natural justice not sustainable as has been held by the Apex Court in the cases of Chandrama Tewari v Union of India & Ors., 1987 (Supp) SCC 518; State of UP and others v Ramesh Chandra Mangalik, (2002) 3 SCC 443; and in the case of Pathrella v Oriental Bank of Commerce (2007) 1 SCC (L&S)
224. In the case of U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd v R.S.Pandey and another, 2006 SCC (L&S) 78, the Honble Apex Court has gone to the extent of holding that non-supply of enquiry report before acting on the same by the Disciplinary Authority will not vitiate the punishment unless specific prejudice is shown by the delinquent. However, it is noticed that the Applicant has taken up this point as one of the grounds in his defence to the report of the IO as also before the Appellate Authority and after taking note of such submission, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of Compulsory retirement which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. In view of the present law, we find no merit in this submission of the Applicant. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Courts/Tribunal should not interfere with the decision of the Administrator unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards (Ref. Union of India v Dwarka Prasad Tiwari, (2006) 10 SCC 388). The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision (vide V.Ramana v S.P.SRTC and Others, (2005) 7 SCC 338).
7. The applicant was charge sheeted for committing fraud/misappropriation of Government money. Loss of confidence occupies the primary factor and not the amount of money involved. Once employee has lost confidence of the employer, it would not be safe to continue the employee in service. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or sympathy on the part of judicial forums to interfere with the quantum of punishment is the consistent view of the Honble Apex Court and it would suffice to rely on the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of A.P.S.R.T.C. v Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad, (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 151.
8. From the materials placed on record it is crystal clear that none of the provisions of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965, have been violated; nor principles of natural justice affording adequate opportunity to Applicant to defend his case have been given a go-bye. The Applicant has been issued with the charge sheet along with list of documents and witnesses and the charges have been proved based on those documents and witness not on any other documents. He was also allowed opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. He was supplied with the copy of the report of the IO to which he submitted his reply. The Disciplinary Authority has passed a cogent reasoned order discussing all the points. The Appellate Authority has also discussed all the points taken by the applicant in his appeal memo. The applicant has shown no prejudice caused to him for non-supply of a few additional documents. Therefore, there is hardly any scope for this Tribunal to interfere in the matter, as it is no more res-integra that Tribunal cannot sit as a Court of appeal over a decision based on finding of the inquiry authority in disciplinary proceedings (Ref: Principal Secretary Govt. of AP v M. Adinarayana, (2004) 12 SCC 579); nor the Tribunal can re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion other than the conclusion reached by IO (Ref: Lakshmi Narayan Shetty v Shantha and another, (2003) 9 SCC 190). Also it is settled position of law that in departmental proceeding, strict proof of following Evidence Act is not required but preponderance of probability would suffice to impose penalty (ref: Lalit Popli v Canara Bank and others, 2003 (3) SCC 583, Cholan Roadways Ltd v G.Thirugnanasambandam, JT 2005(1) SC 116).
9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the settled position of law, we find no merit in this Original Application. OA stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.R.Mohanty) (C.R.Mohapatra) Vice-Chairman (J) Member (Admn.)