Punjab-Haryana High Court
Som Nath vs Union Of India And Others on 25 September, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.21385 of 2013
Date of Decision: September 25, 2013
Som Nath ....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.
Present : Mr.Anuj Balian, Advocate, for the petitioner.
---
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The petitioner impugns the order dated 13.12.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh whereby his Original Application challenging the charge-sheet dated 23.01.2002; order of removal from service dated 29.09.2003 and the appellate orders dated 6.12.2004 and 20.05.2005 were upheld and the Original Application dismissed.
As may be seen, the Tribunal's order under challenge in this writ petition was passed on 13.12.2007, hence the writ petition, in our considered view, suffers from delay and laches and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
However, in para No.8 of the writ petition, it is averred that petitioner is 90% physically handicapped and is the sole bread earner in the family due to which he could not avail legal assistance in time. We have, therefore, in all fairness heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merits as well.
Kumar Mohinder 2013.10.23 12:11 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21385 of 2013 [2] The petitioner was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master on 12.12.1995. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 23.01.2002 alleging misappropriation of various amounts ranging from Rs.100/- to Rs.5000/-. A regular enquiry was conducted. Main charges were proved and based upon that, order of removal was passed. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 6.12.2004 (Annexure P-3) not only dealt with the evidence led before the Enquiry Officer but with every contention of the petitioner minutely and passed a well reasoned order finding no merit in his appeal. Similarly, the Chief Post Master General, Haryana Circle, also rejected the petitioner's second appeal with a well reasoned order holding as follows:-
".....6. So far as Article of Charge No.11 is concerned, the petitioner has assailed the findings of the Inquiry Officer on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the amount of Rs.100/- was entrusted to him. He also pleads that entry of deposit in the Pass Book was made by Sh.Roop Chand, EDA/R and the authentication of the entry of deposit by the date stamp impression can not be taken as a proof in token of the amount having been received by him. Perusal of the evidence, which has come on record during the oral inquiry, shows that the amount of Rs.100/- was received by Sh.Roop Chand, EDA/R from the father of the minor depositor as deposed in Ex.S-3 and passed on the amount to the petitioner. The entry of Kumar Mohinder 2013.10.23 12:11 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21385 of 2013 [3] deposit was made in the Pass Book by the EDA/R. According to Ex.S-13, the petitioner had authenticated the entry with his initials and date stamp of the B.O. The petitioner vide Ex.S-13 has admitted that he forgot to take the amount in account and had credited the said amount in UCR voluntarily on 19.2.2001. The averments now being made by the petitioner seems to have come by way and after thought.
7. To conclude, the integrity of the petitioner in this case was not above board and he has not come clean. There are, therefore, no reasons for me to intercede on his behalf. The petitioner, therefore, deserves to be rejected......"
The Central Administrative Tribunal, also concurred with the findings and dismissed the Original Application observing that:
"....Even though Subhash Chand has deposed in his statement that he could not read his statement (Exhibit S-16 and S-17) though not admitted to these having been written in his own hand writing but he has admitted his signatures on the previous statement made at the time of preliminary enquiry. Therefore, plea of the applicant that the charges were fully dependent on previous statements is not acceptable. Moreover, applicant himself admitted this fact that Kumar Mohinder 2013.10.23 12:11 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21385 of 2013 [4] Rs.5000/- were given to him by Subhash Chand for depositing but he failed to account for the same in Thakurpura B.O. Daily Account dated 12.7.2000 Ex.S-8. In view of the documentary evidence of Daily Account having no entry is thus sufficient to prove guilt of the applicant.
16. Similarly, keeping in view no entry of Rs.100/- in B.O. Accounts is made on the relevant date of 4.12.1998, applicant cannot absolve himself from the charge also. Admittedly, this amount was later on accounted for on 19.1.2001 after lapse of 3 years. Entry was also found to be made in the month of December, 1998 and it was initialed with affixation of date stamp 4.12.1998. This charge has also been proved beyond doubt by I.O. while holding him responsible of date stamp being misused even if it is presumed that he has not made such entry on 4.12.1998......"
The petitioner's contention that the mandatory procedure contemplated under the Rules was not followed, cannot be accepted as the principles of natural justice required to be observed in a domestic enquiry have been fully applied. Similarly, the plea that no loss was caused to State exchequer deserves rejection as the subsequent deposit of the amount in the respective accounts of customers did not absolve the petitioner from his misconduct be that of temporary embezzlement.
Kumar Mohinder 2013.10.23 12:11 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21385 of 2013 [5] In our considered view, no interference in the above-reproduced findings of fact is called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
September 25, 2013 (SURINDER GUPTA)
Mohinder JUDGE
Kumar Mohinder
2013.10.23 12:11
I attest to the accuracy of this
order
Chandigarh