Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Ms Ramani Krishnan vs Commissioner Central Provident Fund on 17 October, 2019
1 OA.No.170/00823/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH: BANGALORE
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00823/2016
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019
HON'BLE DR.K.B.SURESH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI C.V.SANKAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Ms.Ramani Krishnan
D/o. K.Krishnan
Aged about 54 years
Senior Social Security Assistant
(under orders of removal from service)
Sub-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner's
Office, Bommasandra, Bengaluru-560099.
Residing at No.43/44, 8th Cross
Markhan Road, Ashoknagar
Bengaluru-560025. ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri K.Sambasivam)
Vs.
1. The Additional Central Provident Fund
Commissioner & Appellate Authority
(Karnataka & Goa State)
"Kaveri", Bhavishya Nidhi Enclave
HMT Main Road, Jalahalli
Bengaluru-560013.
2. The Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner-1 & Disciplinary Authority
Regional Office, No.62, 3rd Cross
Industrial Suburb, Yeshwantpur II Stage
Bengaluru-560 022. ...Respondents
(By Advocates Sri G.Mallikarjunappa & Sri Venkataramana for R2)
ORDER
(PER HON'BLE SHRI C.V.SANKAR, MEMBER (ADMN) The case of the applicant is that while working as Senior Social Security Assistant(Sr.SSA) in Regional Office, Bengaluru, the applicant was suspended from service w.e.f. 8.11.2011 pending inquiry on the ground of an alleged sting 2 OA.No.170/00823/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench operation by TV9 telecast on 7.11.2011 showing the applicant accepting money alleged to be bribe for speedy settlement of a claim. Subsequently, she was served with a Memorandum of Charge by 2 nd respondent (Disciplinary Authority) vide memo dtd.1.8.2012(Annexure-A3) on the following charges:
Article-I: Smt. Ramani Krishnan, Sr.SSA while working as such at Regional Office, Bangalore during the period 2011-12 is found to have committed grave misconduct in as much as she demanded & accepted Rs.10,000/- as bribe to settle the PF claims of Sri.Sreedhar Kambar (PF A/c No.KN/BN/19515/400) and was caught on camera in a sting operation conducted by TV9 News Channel.
Thus, Smt. Ramani Krishnan, Sr.SSA by the aforesaid acts has failed to maintain absolute integrity, exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming of an employee of EPFO thereby violated Rule 3(1)
(i), (ii) & (iii) of the CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964, which are mutatis mutandis applicable to the staff of Employees' Provident Fund Organisation read with Regulations 27 of EPF (Staff Conditions of Services) Regulations, 1962 as amended from time to time.
Article-II: Smt. Ramani Krishnan, Sr.SSA while working as such at Regional Office, Bangalore during the period 2010-11 is found to have committed grave misconduct in as much as she demanded and accepted Rs.3,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.7,000/- as bribe to settle the PF claims of Sri Manikandan (PF A/c No.KN/BN/19515/201), Sri G.Abhinandhan (PF A/c No.KN/19515/235) and Sri Vishwanath, (PF A/c No.KN/BN/19515/257) respectively.
Thus, Smt. Ramani Krishnan, Sr.SSA by the aforesaid acts has failed to maintain absolute integrity, exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming of an employee of EPFO thereby violated Rule 3(1)
(i), (ii) & (iii) of the CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964, which are mutatis mutandis applicable to the staff of Employees' Provident Fund Organisation read with Regulations 27 of EPF (Staff Conditions of Services) Regulations, 1962 as amended from time to time.
Article-III: Smt. Ramani Krishnan, Sr.SSA while working as such at Regional Office, Bangalore during the period 2009-12 is found to have committed grave misconduct in as much as she was running a Private Chit during Office hours in RO, Bangalore.
Thus, Smt. Ramani Krishnan, Sr.SSA by the aforesaid acts has failed to maintain absolute integrity, exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming of an employee of EPFO thereby violated Rule 3(1)
(ii) & 3(1) (iii) of the CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964, which are mutatis mutandis applicable to the staff of Employees' Provident Fund Organisation read with Regulations 27 of EPF (Staff Conditions of Services) Regulations, 1962 as 3 OA.No.170/00823/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench amended from time to time.
2. Applicant submits that for want of copies of documents enclosed with charge memo, she could not submit a detailed written statement of defence but to give a one-line statement denying the charges in general. Thus 2 nd respondent failed to comply with the procedure laid down in Rule 10(4) of the Employees Provident Fund Staff (EPFS) (CCA) Rules, 1971. A departmental enquiry under Rule 10 of EPFS(CCA) Rules, 1971 was conducted by Inquiring Authority who submitted his report dtd.4.2.2015, a copy of which is also served on the applicant on 11.2.2015(Annexure-A4). The applicant submitted a representation dtd.13.4.2015(Annexure-A5) to the 2nd respondent. But the 2nd respondent passed the major penalty order dtd.19.1.2016(Annexure-A2) imposing the penalty of 'removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Central Board'. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant submitted an appeal dtd.25.2.2016(Annexure-A6) to the 1 st respondent(Appellate Authority) contending that the findings of the disciplinary authority are not based on evidence on record and the penalty imposed is harsh, severe and not proportionate to the gravity of the charges. But the 1 st respondent without considering the appeal in accordance with Rule 23 of the EPFS(CCA) Rules, 1971 passed order dtd.26.5.2016(Annexure-A1) rejecting the appeal and confirming the order of the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed the present OA with the following relief:
(a) To set aside the impugned 'Appellate Order' No.
EPFO/ACC(K&G)/VIG-62/337/2015-16 dtd.26.5.2016(Annexure-A1)
passed by respondent-1 & Appellate Authority and the impugned 'Penalty Order' No.KN/PY/PF/VIG/2015-16/199 dtd.19.1.2016(Annexure-A2) passed by respondent-2 & Disciplinary Authority;
(b) To issue further orders or directives to the respondents 1 & 2 to re- 4 OA.No.170/00823/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench instate the applicant in service with immediate effect with all consequential financial and service benefits;
(c) To issue furthers orders or directives to respondents 1 & 2, as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper;
(d) For interim and ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (c);
(e) For costs of this application and incidentals;
(f) For such further and other relief orders and directives as the nature and circumstances of the case may require or justify or as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the aforesaid circumstances of the case, as otherwise the aggrieved applicant will be put to further irreparable loss, grave suffering and great hardship.
3. The applicant further submits that the penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority is not based on even single material witness or material evidence as far as the first two charges are concerned. The disciplinary case is based on an alleged episode of 'illegal gratification' of Rs.10000/- said to have been exchanged between the applicant and a TV9 Cameraman Mr.Raju Patil on behalf of a provident fund claimant Mr.Sreedhar Kambar on 11.10.2011 for settlement of PF claims of the latter and alleged bribes of Rs.3000/-, Rs.5000/- & Rs.7000/- said to have been exchanged between the applicant and 3 other PF claimants during the year 2010-2011. In pursuance of the said alleged charges, the prosecution side was bound to have produced the material evidence i.e., currency notes of Rs.10000/- etc., which were said to have been exchanged between the applicant and the above said persons and material witnesses i.e., 'eyewitnesses' who had actually witnessed the exchange of money or money transaction said to have taken place, to sustain the charges against the applicant. The inquiry report, impugned penalty order and the appellate order clearly reveal that alleged bribe money was not confiscated, sealed by any of the respondents, produced as evidence during the course of enquiry and no 5 OA.No.170/00823/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench panchanama was made on the alleged incident. The 1 st & 2nd respondents have relied purely on the oral depositions of irrelevant witnesses for arriving at their decisions in the disciplinary proceedings, which is bad in law. The whole disciplinary proceedings on the alleged illegal gratification have been created and designed by unscrupulous elements including the prosecution witnesses with the sole aim of tarnishing the image and reputation of the applicant who had received an appreciation letter dtd.1.8.2011 from the said Addl.Central PF Commissioner, Karnataka & Goa for her extraordinary zeal, excellent performance and sincere work in the organisation. These elements had an ulterior motive to implicate the applicant in a fabricated and cooked up case to ruin her honest service of 24 years put in by her in the organisation. It is evident from the records of the disciplinary proceedings that the applicant was threatened and abused by one of the prosecution witnesses and this witness in collusion with other witnesses hatched a conspiracy to implicate the applicant in the whole episode of TV9 operation and in the other charge of bribe. Further the four PF claimants are the 'complainants' in the disciplinary case and they cannot be treated as 'material witness' i.e. eyewitness for their own actions. In other words, a complainant cannot be self-witness and vice-versa. Therefore, the complainants' allegations and contentions cannot be believed in the absence of independent eye witnesses. But the prosecution side failed to produce any independent evidences and hence the alleged charges have not been proved against the applicant. The 1st & 2nd respondents have failed to hold that the applicant was guilty of running a chit under the Chit Fund Act warranting action under the Conduct Rules as the applicant has already submitted that a small group of officials within the office set apart a meagre amount of their savings from monthly salary and mobilise it as a 6 OA.No.170/00823/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench small lumpsum for being extended to needy members to meet any unforeseen financial emergencies without collection of any interest. This is not a business with any commercial intent as alleged. No outsider is allowed to participate in this group saving exercise and this is not done during office hours as alleged, but is managed as and when time permits. Hence, no misconduct whatsoever could be attributed and hence the charge on this count is totally unwarranted and unjustified. The 1st & 2nd respondents have implicated the applicant unnecessarily in the disciplinary proceedings and hence the penalty order and the appellate order deserve to be set aside.
4. Per contra, the respondents have submitted in their reply statement that the applicant while working as Sr.SSA in Regional Office, Bengaluru has put herself in a position wherein she was caught on camera in a sting operation executed by Electronic media (TV9 channel) on the allegation that she has demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.10,000/- from Shri Sreedhar Kambar member of fund for settlement of his provident fund account. The sting operation was conducted as a joint venture amongst the members and TV crew and visual of the operation was aired in the Channel on 7.11.2011. Taking note of the incident, the Disciplinary Authority(DA) has placed the applicant under suspension vide order dtd.8.11.2011 and was later on revoked during August, 2012. The Deputy Director(Vigilance), South Zone, Hyderabad undertook the preliminary investigation and in pursuit has proposed to hold departmental inquiry for ascertaining the facts/veracity of contents of the visuals. In this direction, articles of charges were framed against the applicant and charge sheet with all supporting documents was served on the applicant vide memo dtd.1.8.2012. Keeping in view of the disciplinary proceedings and also in public interest, the 7 OA.No.170/00823/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench applicant was transferred from Regional Office, Bengaluru to Sub-Regional Office(SRO), Chikmagalur during August 2012. Thereafter, she was transferred to the Regional Office, Peenya during Feb/March 2013. While working in SRO, she applied for leave very frequently on the pretext of illness/domestic grounds. The officer-in charge, SRO being not satisfied with the demeanour of applicant was inclined to put to scrutiny of medical certificate/grounds of illness and hence referred her case to District Surgeon, Chikmagalur District Hospital seeking second medical opinion from the Medical Attendant/Authority. The applicant was instructed to report on 8.11.2012 for medical examination which she failed to appear before the District Surgeon. She remained unauthorisedly absent from duty and as a consequence the competent authority vide memo dtd.18.1.2013 initiated disciplinary proceedings and the inquiry officer held that all the articles of charges levelled against the applicant have been proved vide inquiry report dtd.23.10.2014. In furtherance, the disciplinary authority vide order dtd.25.3.2015 imposed the penalty of reduction of two increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect. The applicant filed OA.No.111/2016 which is pending for disposal. The applicant vide representation dtd.2.1.2013 approached the Director, National Commission for Scheduled Caste, Bengaluru with the request for directions to department for transfer from Chikmagalur to Bengaluru on the grounds of illness of parents and also for non receipt of salary for the months of November, 2012 and December, 2012. The Director vide communication dtd.4.1.2013 instructed the respondent organisation for cancellation of transfer and to retain the applicant at Bangalore. Then the respondent organisation filed WP.2439/2013 which was dismissed by the Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Again the respondents have filed another WP.No.3500/2014 8 OA.No.170/00823/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench which was allowed vide order dtd.5.8.2016 and the matter was remanded to the Single Judge for hearing the parties afresh.
5. The respondents submit that consequent to issue of charge sheet vide memorandum dtd.1.8.2012 for conduct of inquiry proceedings to bring about the findings on the sting operation executed by the TV channel, Sri Raman Dhanasekar, Regional PF Commissioner-II was appointed as Inquiry Officer(IO) to submit his findings against the articles of charges framed against the applicant. The charge memo was supported with list of documents along with the video clipping of sting operation/episode through Compact Disc(CD). The inquiry authority conducted the inquiry based on documentary evidence and in his report he mentioned the details of evidence which were taken on record. While assessing the evidence as also the testimony of parties, the IO has noted that even though claim forms submitted by members are found to be defective i.e. lack of signature/wage details etc., the applicant has processed the claims without adhering to the manual of accounting procedure and only by acceptance of financial gratification from the parties to the proceedings. The applicant has stressed that receipt of money is not illegal financial gratification rather it was chit amount ignoring the fact that money is not received from any staff member but rather it was accepted from the crew of the sting operation and thus failed to crack down the evidence in her favour. Further the IO has exercised caution in placing on record the list of prosecution witness and also the fact that the applicant has not produced any defence documents/defence witnesses and the inquiry officer in its report was specific to place remarks as 'nil'. The IO has framed the report dtd.4.2.2015 in a cohesive manner under the headings i.e. features of the case, statement of imputations of misconduct, admitted facts and 9 OA.No.170/00823/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench documents, details of proceedings, prosecution documents and witnesses, evidence of charged official, evaluation of evidence, analysis of the case and supported his findings besides meeting the requirement of vigilance procedure. Further documentary evidence as well as prosecution witnesses were examined and ample opportunity was provided to the applicant for verification of documents and also cross examination of witnesses. The IO has ensured that inquiry proceedings are conducted according to procedure and also due adherence to the principles of natural justice. The IO with the aid of dictum of preponderance of probability has appreciated the records/evidence and drawn his findings i.e articles of charges were proved without any reasonable doubt. The Disciplinary Authority(DA) having agreed with the IO's report has imposed the punishment of 'removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment under the Central Board' upon the applicant vide order dtd.19.1.2016. The Appellate Authority(AA) vide order dtd.26.5.2016 has taken on record that grounds urged by the applicant and on analysis of inquiry report dtd.4.2.2015 has come to the conclusion that the penalty order of DA dtd.19.1.2016 needs no intervention at his hands. On the contention of non-compliance of Rule 10(4) of the EPFS(CCA) Rules, 1971, the respondents submit that as per Rule 10(4), 'the DA shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the employee a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained and shall require the employee to submit within such time as may be specified, a written statement of her defence and to state whether she desires to be heard in person'. It is imperative from the said rule proviso that the DA is required to furnish list of article of charges with supporting documents and 10 OA.No.170/00823/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench witnesses and this primary requirement has been met with by the respondents with issuance of the charge sheet on applicant along with all the Annexures III & IV vide memo dtd.1.8.2012. The IO in its report has specifically noted that the Charged Official(CO)/applicant was provided with an opportunity to examine all the listed documents and the applicant had confirmed it during the hearing on 25.6.2013. In response to the question levelled by the IO, the applicant answered that she possessed neither any documentary evidence nor witness. The noting of the IO makes explicit that applicant was provided with all relevant documentary evidence and thus they acted in accordance with the rule proviso. On the contention regarding non-adherence of principles of natural justice by the respondents, they submit that on the one hand the applicant claims for non receipt of listed documents and on the other attended hearing on various dates and involved herself in examining the documents and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. Further, she has exercised diligence in cross-examination of all the witnesses and could not fetch any count in her favour. She never raised the issue of adequacy of listed documents during the hearing or before DA and failed to place that in the absence of supply of requisite/demanded documents much prejudice would cause to her and vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. The applicant having deliberately failed to traverse the testimony of witness during the inquiry is precluded from raising the issue of adequacy of evidence adduced in domestic inquiry at this stage and the same is not permissible on the score that judiciary has already set in ratio on this count i.e. Civil Appeal No.10942/2014 in G.M.(operations) State Bank of India in order dtd.10.12.2014 by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The deposition submitted by Sri G.Abhinandan(Annexure-R1) emanates that applicant has cross-examined the said witness and could not 11 OA.No.170/00823/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench disprove the evidence/statement. As such it is not permissible for the applicant for questioning the adequacy/veracity of documentary evidence. The respondents have quoted the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. S.Sree Rama Rao (AIR 1963 SC 1723) in support of their contention. The respondents had conducted the inquiry in all fairness and resorted to imposition of major penalty of removal from service on the strength of evidence/documents on records. The respondents relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C).No.4569/2010 & WP.No.5248/2010 in support of their stand.
6. On the contention that the penalty of removal from service is not proportionate to the gravity of charges, the respondents submit that the applicant has failed to note that invocation of doctrine of proportionality demands set up of staunch grounds such as malafide, arbitrary and unreasonableness against the respondents and mere averment in the absence of any documentary evidence holds no water as also falls outside the gamut of judicial review/conscience of the Court. The applicant has erred in not noticing that stretch of doctrine of proportionality depends on facts of each case and it is not a universal application for claiming relief in all disciplinary cases. By taking into consideration the gravity of misconduct, upkeep of image of organisation, discipline, failure to discharge the duties etc., the DA was inclined to impose the penalty of removal from service and thus falls away from defiance in the eyes of law. Regarding non production of material evidence and material witness, the respondents submit that it is the applicant who is required to place the documentary evidence/records in support of her cause. In the present case, the applicant has not supported her cause with documentary evidence. It is settled position of law that rigours of Indian Evidence 12 OA.No.170/00823/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench Act does not apply in full extent to departmental proceedings but at the same time it needs a mention that it is on the applicant to prove the existence of any fact and the burden of proof lies on that person. The IO in his report has recorded the statement of all the witnesses and also cross-examination of the applicant and has drawn the findings under the shelter of doctrine of preponderance of probability. The chain of events as narrated by the prosecution witnesses distinguish in itself that applicant has demanded and accepted the bribe from the members/prosecution witnesses and applicant failed to shift the burden of proof. The production of material evidence i.e. currency notes is not a prerequisite on the part of DA for establishing the cause rather it is evident from the findings of IO. The IO has taken all precaution to ascertain the two hall marks of the electronic device i.e. source and authenticity and on appreciating the evidence has taken on record the CD and on perusing the visuals by all parties to the proceedings has affirmed the imputation of charge vide report dtd.4.2.2015. The diligence exercised by the IO is reasonable and acceptable in the manner known to law/legal procedure. The DA has acted on the findings of IO's report which is based on preponderance of probability and applicant is not entitled for any relief on the grounds of re-appreciation of evidence as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.C.Chaturvedi vs. UOI [(1995) 6 SCC 749] that 're- appreciation of evidence is not ordinarily feasible while enforcing discipline in departmental proceedings and as such claim of the applicant regarding non- adherence of principles of criminal procedure code is extraneous to the facts on hand. As such the list of documents mentioned in Annexure III of charge memo stood the test of scrutiny and eventual findings of IO and orders of the 1 st and 2nd respondents had attained finality. Hence, the OA is liable to be dismissed. 13 OA.No.170/00823/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench
7. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the submission already made in the OA and submits that the investigation report of the Deputy Director(Vigilance), South Zone, Hyderabad has not been cited as a document in the list of documents at Annexure-III of the charge memo. No show cause notice was issued to the applicant pursuant to the investigation report and no opportunity was given to the applicant to give reply to the preliminary investigation report which would have enabled the DA to establish prima-facie evidence to institute departmental inquiry under the relevant CCA Rule. This would have given reasonable opportunity and natural justice to her. Instead of following the statutory procedure, the DA has hurried in a hasty manner to initiate the departmental inquiry relying on some illegal and unauthorised video clippings of a private TV channel. Based on the reply to the first show cause notice, if the DA is of the opinion that there are grounds to inquire into the findings of the investigating authority, that authority may institute the inquiry under the relevant rule of the CCA Rules, if not he may exonerate the applicant from the allegations if any made in the investigation report as has been held in S.C.Pandey vs. MP. AIR 1961 MP 293.
8. The applicant submits that charge memo dtd.1.8.2012 directs her to file reply to the charge memo within 10 days of receipt of the same. The 2 nd respondent has failed to comply with the procedure laid down in Rule 10(4) of the EPF(CCA) Rules. Non-compliance of the statutory provision by the 2 nd respondent has resulted in denial of reasonable opportunity to the applicant to defend herself against the charges made in the charge memo, and consequently in the failure of justice. Further, reply to the charge memo was furnished on 1.10.2012 but the 2 nd respondent without considering the reply, proceeded with the inquiry by 14 OA.No.170/00823/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench appointing Inquiry Authority and Presenting Officer. This only shows that the DA had pre-conceived notion about the alleged misconduct and also about the penalty that he could impose which is against the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manak Lal vs. Dr.Singhvi, AIR 1957 SC 425 as per which the DA can appoint the IO only on receipt of the reply from the Govt. Servant to the show cause notice. Courts have set aside the inquiries when the inquiry authority is appointed well before the receipt of the reply from the Govt. Servant to the show cause notice. Furthermore, the impugned order passed by the 1 st respondent is not in speaking form in so far as the consideration of the appeal of the applicant in accordance with Rule 23(2) of the EPF(CCA) Rules. The 1 st respondent has clearly admitted that the procedure laid down in the EPF (CCA) Rules has not been complied with. No first show cause notice was served on the applicant against the preliminary investigation report and no reasonable opportunity was given to the applicant to reply. The DA has instituted the inquiry unilaterally relying on the video clippings of some private channel which is against Rule 10(2) of the EPF(CCA) Rules.
9. We have heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the materials placed on record along with written arguments notes and additional written arguments notes filed by both the parties in detail. It is apparent from the details of the case records along with the orders passed by the respondents that the applicant was given adequate opportunity to present her case including cross-examination of all the witnesses. The applicant was given adequate time to respond to the charges made against her. Her main contention is that there are several cases relating to the non-admissibility of any sting operation or video recordings to prove the guilt or otherwise of the persons. She also pointed out 15 OA.No.170/00823/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench that the money said to have been received by her had not been brought in as evidence into the disciplinary proceedings. The respondents have furnished detailed explanation for all the points raised by her including the fact that all the necessary documents relating to the charge sheet were given to her and she had not raised any objection to any of them including the video disk wherein the sting operation was recorded. She also has no explanation as to how the money was received by her for settling the claim of the complainant out of turn and with certain discrepancies. The sequence of the events and the manner in which the claims were settled by the applicant clearly shows that she was a party to the demanding of certain amounts to settle claims of the complainants as noted in the charge sheet. She has also produced certain letters from DoP&T etc., relating to the chits being an acceptable practice. The said letters of DoP&T relate to the definition of movable property and they only state that there is no bar on the Govt. Servants investing in chit funds as part of savings. This does not mean that the officials like the applicant are permitted to run chits in the office which she has admitted stating that it was done on a no loss no gain basis. Adequate circumstantial evidence has been brought in by the respondents and as stated by them, the applicant was not able to contradict or disprove any of the evidences brought in by the respondents to prove that she had demanded money for the settlement of PF claims. As correctly noted by the respondents, in disciplinary proceedings, based on the consideration of irrefutable evidence brought in, the charges against the delinquent can be considered as proved. In this case, even though the applicant claims that the sting operation was not authorised etc., and that the video could have been doctored, as stated by the respondents, she has not been able to bring in any evidence to show that the 16 OA.No.170/00823/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench video footage was doctored or was not taken at all. She is clearly in the picture taking money from some of the persons whose evidence has been taken on record. In fact, she had in the beginning stated that the amount was taken as chit money which again has directly proved that she was conducting a chit business. But this admission was probably made without thinking through the fact that the money had not been taken from the employees of the PF organisation but from employees of other organisations who were having PF accounts and who have been applying for withdrawal of money from the PF accounts.
10. It is also noted that the enquiry was initiated based on the report of the sting operation aired in the news channel and not as part of the trap proceedings. The inquiry officer had also confirmed about the source and authenticity of the electronic device and has also examined in detail not only the statement of prosecution witnesses but also various corroborated evidences such as the date of submission of the claims, reasons for delay in processing of claims and jumping the queue and attending on priority of the complainants' claims, including witnesses in support of the sting operation. All of which could not be refuted by the applicant based on the records. It is also seen that the applicant had allowed one of the complainants to correct the claims after the acceptance of the bribe. The respondents have also cited a catena of decisions up to the Hon'ble Apex Court relating to the fact that the Courts could not be guided by misplaced sympathy as a factor in judicial review while examining the quantum of punishment. It is also noted that the applicant could neither bring forward any documents or witnesses in support of her case nor was she able to discredit or disprove any of the prosecution witnesses or the documents produced by the respondents. The applicant could not adduce any evidence as to why the 17 OA.No.170/00823/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench complainants should falsely implicate her when in all the cases, there had been considerable delay in the settlement of claims and the claims have been settled only after the payment of bribe money. It is very obvious that a large number of claims were kept pending for months together and the settlements effected only on payment of the bribe to the applicant. This has been conclusively proved in the proceedings and there has not been any lacuna in terms of giving adequate opportunity to the applicant to defend her case. She had also admitted that she was running a chit and therefore we are unable to accept any of the applicant's contentions. We find no merit in the OA and therefore, the OA is dismissed. No costs.
(C.V.SANKAR) (DR.K.B.SURESH)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ps/
18 OA.No.170/00823/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench
Annexures referred to by the applicant in OA.No.170/00823/2016 Annexure-A1: Appellate Order dtd.26.5.2016 Annexure-A2: Penalty order dtd.19.1.2016 Annexure-A3: Charge Memo dtd.1.8.2012 Annexure-A4: Inquiry Report dtd.4.2.2015 Annexure-A5: Written statement of defence dtd.13.4.2015 on the inquiry report Annexure-A6: Appeal dtd.25.2.2016 against the Penalty Order Annexures with reply statement:
Annexure-R1: A copy of the deposition submitted by Shri G.Abhinandan Annexures with rejoinder:
-NIL-
Annexures with the written arguments note filed by the respondents:
-NIL-
Annexures with the written arguments note filed by the applicant:
-NIL-
*****