Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Gurmit Singh vs D/O Post on 12 December, 2024
1- O.A. No. 657/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.060/657/2020
Pronounced on: 12.12.2024
Reserved on: 27.11.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Gurmit Singh, S/o Sh. Nand Singh, aged about 50 years, r/o village Abul
Khurana, Post Office Tappa Khera-152 114, Distt. Muketsar (Punjab);
ex- Gramin Dak Sewak BPM, Branch PO Abul Khurana, P.O. Tappa
Khera- 152 114, Distt Muketsar(Pb). (Group-D) (Ex-GDS)
.... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Jaswinder Singh
Versus
1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of
Communications, Deptt. of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansand Marg, New
Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Sandesh Bhawan,
Sector-17, Chandigarh -160017.
3. The Postmaster General Punjab West Region, Sandesh Bhawan,
Sector-17, Chandigarh-160017.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Faridkot Division, Faridkot -151
203.
..... Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following relief:
i) To quash & set aside the Order of Revisionary Authority dated 27.10.2017 by which the enhanced penalty has been imposed (Annexure A-1);2- O.A. No. 657/2020
ii) To quash & set aside the Order of President dated 16.10.2019 by which the Revision petition has been rejected (Annexure A-
10);
2. The facts leading to filing of the case are that while the applicant was working as GDS BPM, Abul Khrana Branch Post Office, a Charge Sheet dated 23.3.2016 (Annexure A-2), was served upon him under Rule 10 of the GDS(C&E) Rules, 2011(A-2) alleging that he kept Government cash of Rs.7156/- short and misappropriated the amount by using the same for his personal/domestic affairs. The applicant submitted reply to Charge sheet on 06.4.2016, admitting the charge. The respondent appointed Inquiry Officer on 19.4.2016 who submitted the enquiry report on 29.4.2016. The applicant submitted representation dated 19.5.2016, admitting the charge. The Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No.4) imposed the penalty of reduction of TRCA by two stages for a period of three years, vide order dated 22.6.2016(Annexure A-3). The Respondent No.3 issued a suo moto notice for enhancement of penalty on 14.9.2017 (Annexure A-4), after a gap of one year and three months (15 months) and enhanced the penalty to removal from engagement vide order dated 27.10.2017 (Annexure A-1).
3. The applicant preferred appeal dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure A-5) to CPMG Punjab Circle (Respondent No.2) against the enhanced penalty. The Respondent No.2 replied vide letter dated 14.12.2017 (Annexure A-
6) that the appeal is not maintainable. The applicant submitted an application dated 26.12.2017 (Annexure A-7) to Respondent no.2, justifying his application. The respondent no. 2, vide letter dated 17.05.2018 (Annexure A-8) rejected the appeal of the applicant on the ground that no appeal/revision lies at this stage in accordance with Rule 3- O.A. No. 657/2020 19(2) of GDS (Conduct and engagement) Rules, 2011. The applicant submitted an appeal to the President of India on 07.04.2018 (Annexure A-9) through proper channel, which has been rejected vide order dated 16.10.2019 (A-10)on the ground that the applicant does not meet the criteria for Presidential intervention nor has any injustice been caused to him.
4. The contention of the applicant is that the enhancement of penalty of removal of engagement from service by Respondent no. 3 through suo motto review, is very severe and disproportionate. He has placed upon judgments of B.C. Chaudhary Vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, S.R. Tewari Vs. Union of India and Another (2013) 6 SCC 602. He contended that the action of respondent no. 3 suffers from the vice of delay and arbitrariness as the impugned suo motto notice for enhanced penalty was issued on 14.09.2017 after lapse of considerable period of 15 months and the revision by the Head of the Circle can be done only within 06 months under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
5. The respondents filed written statement contesting the claim of the applicant. It has been stated therein that the applicant was working as GDSBPM Abul Khurana BO and while working as such he has retained the excess cash of Rs.7156/- without any liability. Sub Postmaster Tappakhera Sub Post office vide his office letter No 22 dated 18.05.2015 addressed to SDI (P) Malout intimated about retention of excess cash by the applicant without mentioning liability. SDI (P) Malout visited Abul Khurana BO on 21.05.2015 and found that Rs 7156/- were short with the applicant. Sufficient time was given to the applicant by SDI (P) to make good the shortage of cash but he could not do so. Accordingly, the account of 20.05.2015 of Abul Khurana BO was tallied by charging the 4- O.A. No. 657/2020 amount of Rs 7156/- under the Head UCP (Unclassified Payments). Later on, the said amount of Rs. 7156/- was credited under the Head UCR (Unclassified Receipts) vide UCR dated 23.5.2015 Tappakhera Sub Post office by the applicant.
6. Further, it has been stated that the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of Reduction in TRCA by lower stages from the present stage of TRCA for a period of three years which was reviewed by the Regional PMG under the provisions contained in Rule 19 (1) (i) of GDS (C& E) Rules, 2011, and on review, the punishment awarded to the applicant was not found commensurate with the misconduct attributed to him. A show-cause notice was served to the applicant on 14.09.2017 for submitting representation against the proposal of enhancement of penalty of "Reduction in TRCA by lower stages from the present stage of TRCA for a period of three years" to "Removal from engagement". After considering the representation of the applicant, the penalty awarded to the applicant vide order dated 22.06.2016 was enhanced to removal from engagement vide PMG, Punjab West Region Memo dated 27.10.2017 (A-1).
7. The respondents submitted that the enhanced penalty is proportionate to the gravity of misconduct attributed to the applicant and the same cannot be termed to be shocking to the conscience of this Tribunal and is liable to be upheld. It has also been contended that there is no procedural lapse or irregularity in the passing of the impugned orders. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Parma Nanda, (1989) 2 SCC 177.
8. The applicant filed rejoinder stating therein that the power of review is not conferred on respondent no. 3/PMG Punjab West Region, 5- O.A. No. 657/2020 therefore, the action of serving the show cause notice and awarding enhanced penalty is legally unsustainable and non-est in the eyes of law.
9. The admitted facts are that the applicant was proceeded under Rule 10 of the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2011 by the Disciplinary Authority on the charge of temporary misappropriation of government cash of Rs.7156/- on 20.05.2015 and the said misappropriated fund was credited under head UCR on 23.05.2015 only after two days. He was awarded penalty of Reduction in TRCA by lower stages from the present stage of TRCA for a period of three years which was reviewed and enhanced by the Regional PMG/Respondent No. 3 to "Removal from engagement", after serving a show-cause notice on the applicant.
10. The issue herein for consideration for us is whether the enhanced penalty commensurate with the misconduct committed by the applicant.
11. The applicant has been serving the respondent department as GDS since 1994 and his service record remained unblemished for last 22 years until 2015 when he was found short of Rs.7156/- of Government cash on 20.05.2015. The applicant admitted the charge before the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of "Reduce in TRCA by lower two stages from the present stage of TRCA for a period of three years with further direction that GDS BPM will not earn annual increase during the period of reduction and that on expiry of the punishment period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing further increase of his TRCA", vide order dated 22.06.2016. The applicant accepted the penalty awarded to him by the Disciplinary Authority, as he did not prefer any appeal against the penalty order dated 22.06.2016 of the Disciplinary Authority.
6- O.A. No. 657/2020
12. The grievance of the applicant is only against the enhancement of the penalty by the Respondent No. 3, who enhanced the penalty of "removal from engagement, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment". While issuing the show-cause notice dated 14.09.2017, the respondent no. 3 has observed that the order of SPO Faridkot taking a lenient view is a mistaken sense of leniency, which promotes discipline and makes the system vulnerable to unscrupulous elements. The respondent no. 2 while imposing the harsh punishment of removal from engagement did not consider the facts that the applicant has been working diligently and sincerely since 1994 and past work verification of the applicant was completed with satisfactory results by the respondents. The respondent no. 2 also did not consider the facts that the applicant admitted the charge before the Inquiry Officer, apologized, deposited the short amount of Rs.7156/- within two days and promised not to repeat such misconduct in future. The applicant though deserves punishment for his misconduct but not harsh as to taking away his means of livelihood. The punishment should be to reform the offender and not to ruin him.
13. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Nath (supra) held as under:-
"22. To sum up the legal position, being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the 7- O.A. No. 657/2020 gravity of the misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in P. Gunasekaran (supra). If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to re-consider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefor.
14. The applicant herein is a 54 years old, employed as Group-D, who was getting TRCA of approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month. The respondent no. 4 though mentioned that while taking a lenient view the penalty has been awarded but we can see that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority i.e. reduction in TRCA by two stages for three years with further direction that GDS BPM will not earn annual increase during the period of reduction" is fair and appropriate, which from any angle, cannot be said to be less proportionate to the misconduct committed by the applicant. The observation of the respondent no. 3 that the penalty imposed by the respondent no. 2 does not commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct of the applicant is not supported by any valid reason and is held to be irrational and harsh. 8- O.A. No. 657/2020
15. In the present set of circumstances, we are of the view that the enhanced punishment imposed by respondent no. 2 i.e. removal from engagement of a GDS employee is incommensurate with the misconduct of misappropriation of Rs. 7156/-, which the employee admitted with apology after depositing the amount, and such highly disproportionate penalty does shock the conscience of this Tribunal. We, therefore, are compelled to interfere in the matter. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the orders dated 27.10.2017 and 16.10.2019 are hereby quashed and set aside. The order of the Disciplinary Authority is upheld. The Original Application is allowed. No costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
„mw‟