Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Hari Singh Meena vs Comptroller And Auditor- General Of ... on 30 January, 2025
OA No. 601/2015 1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 601/2015
Order Reserved on: 16.12.2024
DATE OF ORDER: 30.01.2025
CORAM
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. LOK RANJAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Hari Singh Meena S/o Shri Kirodi Lal Meena aged about 48
years, R/o B-42, Tapovan Vihar, Jagatpura Jaipur, Rajasthan.
....Applicant
Shri P.P. Mathur, counsel for the applicant.
VERSUS
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
2. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Deendayal
Upadhayay Marg, New Delhi-110002.
3. The Accountant General (E&RSA), Rajasthan, Janpath,
Jaipur-302005.
4. Dr. Brijesh Sharma, Ayurveda Chiktsa Adhikari, Rajkiya
Ayurvedic Chikitsalaya, Kotputli, through Director Ayurved
Department, Rajasthan near Savitri Girls College, Ajmer.
5. Jitendra Saini, Group 'D' Employee, Rajkiya Ayurvedic
Chikitsalya, Barkat Nagar, Jaipur.
6. Shri Ashok Manak, Senior AO, Office of the Principal A.G.
(GSSA) Rajasthan, Jaipur-302005.
.... Respondents
Shri L.M. Bhardwaj, counsel for the respondents.
ORDER
Per: RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant praying for the following reliefs: -
"i) the impugned charge sheet dt. 18.10.2013 (Anne-
A/1), the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority dt. 26.9.2014 (Annex-A/2) and the order dt. OA No. 601/2015 2 10.12.2014 (Annex-A/3) passed by the appellate authority may be quashed and set aside.
ii) the respondents may be directed to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant including pay and allowances during the period he was kept out of duty with interest of 18% p.a.
iii) The Original Application may kindly be allowed throughout with costs.
iv) Any other appropriate order or a direction which is deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal may also be passed in favour of the applicant;"
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that while he was working on the post of Senior Auditor, he sought 15 days leave due to his illness and the rest advised by the Doctor. Subsequently, he sought extension of his leave for further 15 days on the advice of the Doctor. On receiving the fitness certificate from the concerned Doctor, he joined the duties on 26.07.2013 and submitted medical iliness certificate and fitness certificate. The applicant was served with Memo dated 13.08.2013 (Annexure A/4) seeking explanation regarding the alleged tampering of the medical certificate issued by Dr. Brajesh Sharma; the specific explanation sought in the said Memo is reproduced as under:
" XXXXX
3. It was observed that the medical certificate issued by Dr. Brajesh Sharma was over written and advised days of rest were made 5 to 15, both in figures and words. Hence, Dr. Brajesh Sharma was requested to clarify vide letter no. SrDAG (ES-II)/Memo/2013-14/TR-44 dated 28.06.2013, followed by a reminder dated 18.07.2013.
4. On 10.08.2013 a written reply was received from Dr. Brajesh Sharma, Medical Officer of Govt. Ayurved 'A' OA No. 601/2015 3 Grade Hospital, Barkat Nagar, Jaipur, clarifying that the medical certificate was issued by him was for 05 days only and it was not corrected by him. This makes it amply clear that the said medical certificate was tampered with by Shri Meena himself. Thus, he submitted a forged document to avail leave on medical grounds.
XXXXX
7. In view of above, Sh. Hari Singh Meena, Sr. Auditor is directed to explain as to why his unauthorized absence from 26.06.2013 to 25.07.2013 should not be treated as dies-non. Further, Sh. Meena is also directed to explain as to why disciplinary action should be not initiated against him for submitting a forged document to avail leave on medical grounds. xxxxx"
Thereafter, he submitted his explanation dated 19.08.2013 (Annexure A/5). Following which, he was served the memo of charge-sheet dated 18.10.2013 (Annexure A/1) under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant denied the charges. However, the enquiry was conducted against the applicant. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 17.07.2014 (Annexure A/20) wherein the charges against the applicant were found proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the same and awarded him the punishment of compulsory retirement from service w.e.f. 26.09.2014 and also declared the period from 26.06.2013 to 10.07.2013 as dies-non vide order dated 26.09.2014 (Annexure A/2). Against the said punishment order, the applicant filed appeal and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.12.2014 (Annexure A/3) rejected his appeal and upheld the penalty awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, the present Original Application.
OA No. 601/2015 4
3. The applicant has alleged that Inquiry Officer has not held the enquiry with unbiased mind in holding him guilty; the Inquiry Officer failed to consider that Dr. Brajesh Sharma had admitted his signatures on the alleged tampered document but could not explain as to how a wrong registration number was mentioned on it. The applicant further alleges that mentioning of the wrong registration number on the alleged tampered document that too in the hand writing of staff member of hospital should have been held against the Doctor; rather than the patient. He states that the Inquiry Officer has held non-production of the report of hand writing expert by the applicant against him; in case Inquiry Officer held that the opinion of the hand writing expert was essential then he should have ordered the same. He further alleges that the Inquiry Officer also did not consider that Doctor admitted his mistake regarding misplacing of the official copy of the alleged tampered certificate and also ignored that the Doctor had stated that as and when the original office copy of the alleged tampered certificate is found then the same will be submitted by him. The applicant has also agitated that the penalty of compulsory retirement is disproportionate and shocking.
4. In their reply, the respondents have stated that the applicant was given fair opportunity to be heard and to defend himself and that the disciplinary proceedings were held in OA No. 601/2015 5 accordance with the prescribed procedure and law. The;/ have stated that the oral as well as documentary evidence was duly considered by the Inquiry Officer upon which he arrived at the conclusion and found the applicant guilty of the charges. The respondents have also emphasized that the penalty of compulsory retirement upon the applicant w.e.f. 26.09.2014 as well as declaring the period between 26.06.2013 to 10.07.2013 as 'dies-non' is perfectly in order as the applicant has been found guilty of tampering with his medical certificate.
5. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.
6. The issue in short is that the applicant fell ill and was treated by one Dr. Brajesh Sharma, who issued the prescription slip dated 26.06.2013 wherein he prescribed certain medicines and also advised rest. Based on this, the applicant applied for sick/medical leave. Now the controversy in the present case is that the prescription slip dated 26.06.2013 and the medical certificate dated 26.06.2013 issued by Dr. Brajesh Sharma as submitted by the applicant to his employer department mentioned "15" days rest but according to the respondents it was in fact ""5" days and the applicant tampered the same to make it "15" days. On perusal of the statements, record and the inquiry report; though it does not get established beyond doubt that the OA No. 601/2015 6 alleged document was tampered; yet the yardstick of degree of proof in disciplinary matters cannot be the same as in the criminal proceedings. It is a settled law that unless the Court comes to conclusion that the inquiry was not conducted as per law laid down procedure or that the evidence was such that the Inquiry Officer could not at all has come to the conclusion, the Court should refrain from re-appreciating the evidence and substituting its own opinion.
7. Having said that, however, coming to the quantum of the punishment though tampering a document is a grave offence; yet this needs to be considered as to which document was allegedly tampered, what was aimed to be achieved and whom has the same prejudiced. The applicant wanted to avail extended days of leave from the total number of medical leaves for which he was otherwise entitled. As per the prescribed procedure, the employee has to have the prescription / sickness certificate from the competent Doctor to avail medical leave. In the present case, the factum of his sickness is not denied. The applicant was advised rest by the Doctor is not denied. However, the tampering which is alleged is regarding number of days which as per the respondents- department's impression from the alleged tampered document, is 5 days; although it reflects 15 days. The alleged tampering was aimed at availing the extended days of sick/medical leave by the applicant out of his own entitlement and had no adverse consequences on anyone else. As such, OA No. 601/2015 7 we are of the view that ending the services of an employee is actually a capital punishment and the same should be awarded for capital violations. Accordingly, we find the punishment of compulsory retirement from service as excessive and harsh.
8. In view of the above, we hereby quash and set aside the punishment order dated 26.09.2014 (Annexure A/2) passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order dated 10.12.2214 (Annexure A/3) passed by the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. However, the applicant shall not be entitled to any pay and allowances from the date of compulsory retirement i.e. 26.09.2014 till the date of his reinstatement.
9. The applicant does not stand totally exonerated, hence, the loss of pay and allowances for almost 10 years from the date of compulsory retirement till the date of reinstatement would tantamount as punishment in itself.
10. With these observations and directions, the present Original Application is disposed off. No order as to costs.
(LOK RANJAN) (RANJANA SHAHI) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER