Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Ram Dayal Bhagat vs Postal on 8 November, 2018
1. OA/050/00375/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
O.A./O50/00375/2018
Order reserved on 10.10.2018
Date of orders : 08.11. 2018
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JAYESH V. BHAIRAVIA, MEMBER [J]
Ram Dayal Bhagat, S/o Late Ram Bilas Bhagat, Village & PO - Patsara,
P.S. - Piar, District - Muzaffarpur, at present employed as Postal Assistant
at Muzaffarpur Head Post Office, Muzaffarpur - 842001.
...............applicant
By Advocate : Mr. J.K.Karn
.
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Chief Postmaster General, Bihar
Circle, Patna - 800 001.
2. The Post Master General, Northern Region, Muzaffapur - 842002.
3. The Director of Postal Services, Northern Region, Muzaffapur -
842002.
4. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarpur Division,
Muzaffarpur - 842002.
............... Respondents.
By Advocates: Mr. Ravindra Rai
ORDER
Per Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member [J]:- The applicant has filed this OA for the following reliefs :
"8.[A] Memo No - B1-Computerization/Monitoring/Muz. dated at Muzaffarpour the 10.12.14, issued by Disciplinary Authority, the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffapur, as contained in Annexure-A/1, whereby the applicant has been imposed punishment of stoppage of two annual increment without cumulative effect, may be quashed and set aside with consequential benefits. 8[B] Memo No - Staff/AP-20/Muz/15 dated at Muzaffarpour the 17/03.18, issued by Appellate Authority, the Director of Postal Services, Northern Region, Muzaffapur, as contained in Annexure-A/2, whereby erroneous order
2. OA/050/00375/2018 passed by Disciplinary Authority has been upheld, may be quashed and set aside.
8[C] Any other incidental and consequential benefits as the applicant is entitled and found fit and admissible by Your Lordships."
2. The applicant's case in brief, is as follows :
2.1 The applicant is working as Postal Assistant at Muzaffarpur Head Post Office. He is aggrieved by irregular Disciplinary Proceedings whereby punishment of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect has been imposed, vide order dated 30.12.2014 [Annexure-A/1], which has been upheld by the Appellate Authority, the Director of Postal Services, Northern Region, Muzaffapur vide Memo dated 17.03.2018 [Annexure-A/2].
2.2. According to the applicant, vide Annexure-A/3, a statement of imputation of misconduct/misbehavior alleging against him that for the period 17th October, 2014 to 22nd October, 2014 he failed to achieve satisfactory delivery performance of speed post article in the office on 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd October, 2014. Further, while working as SPM from 17th October, 50 25th October, the applicant alleged to have been failed working online in Sanchay Post Module, thereby he failed to discharge his duty sincerely and full devotion as also monitoring of delivery and supervision over delivery staff.
2.3 The applicant submitted his written statement of defence dated 10.11.2014 [Annexure-A/4]. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect [Annexure-A/1].
2.4 The applicant pleaded that the allegations levelled against him are factually incorrect and the same is based upon incorrect data taken from
3. OA/050/00375/2018 computer which was far from truth. He further pleaded that the Disciplinary Authority while considering his case, has not recorded reasons/findings that the misconduct against him was proved. In disciplinary proceeding, it is mandatory requirement that the allegations upon the charged officer are to be proved or disproved. It is submitted that the defense adduced by him in the written statement, has not been considered at all, even the Disciplinary Authority has not recorded the reasons as to what was the result of the alleged misconduct of the applicant. He also pleaded that there is no allegation upon him of putting the administration to any kind of financial loss. The applicant had preferred appeal before the appellate authority and the said appeal was rejected on 17.03.2018 (Annexure A/2 refers).
3. Per contra, the respondents contested the case by filing a written statement. They submitted that during monitoring of the performance report of the office under this division, it was found that the said Shri Ram Dayal Bhagat, applicant while working as SPM, D.A. College S.O. under Muzaffarpur Division, failed to achieve satisfactory delivery performance of the speed post articles, and thus tarnished the image of the Department. Further, he failed to work online in Sanchay Post Module and worked offline/manually, which questions the transparency of the work related with Saving Banks. Accordingly, the applicant was charge-sheeted under Rule 16 of CCS [CCA] Rules, 1965 vide Memo dated 28.10.2014.
4. The respondents further submitted that the applicant was provided opportunity to submit his defense/reply and accordingly he had submitted his reply on 12.11.2014. The Disciplinary Authority after going through the charges leveled against him and also the representation submitted by him, came to the conclusion that the charge leveled against the applicant proved and therefore awarded punishment of stoppage of two
4. OA/050/00375/2018 annual increments without cumulative effect, vide memo dated 30.12.2014. There is no infirmity occurred in disciplinary proceedings and there is no error on the part of the disciplinary authority in imposing the punishment upon the applicant. Aggrieved by the said order the applicant had availed the statutory remedy of appeal and after considering the said appeal the appellate authority had dismissed his appeal vide order dated 17.03.2018. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the decisions of DA as well as AA. As such, the applicant is not entitled for any relief as sought for.
5. Heard the parties and perused the materials on record.
6. It is settled principle of law that in the case of disciplinary action and punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority against the Government servant this Tribunal has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the said orders unless it is passed in violation of principles of natural justice or contrary to the provisions of service rules or passed in absence of any evidence against the delinquent.
7. In the present case, it is noticed that while the applicant was working as SPM D.A. College, SO, Muzaffarpur vide order dated 28.10.2014 a statement of imputation of misconduct/misbehavior of the applicant was served upon him. The said statement of imputation of misconduct is reproduced as under:-
" Shri Ram Dayal Bhagat, while working as SPM D.A. College SO, during the period from 17.10.14 to 22.10.14 he is alleged to have failed to achieve satisfactory delivery performance of Speed post article in his office, i.e. on 17.10.14, on that day same day delivery is 33% & overall delivery is 33%. On 18.10.14, same day 100% & overall 100%, on 19.10.14, same day delivery is 100% and overall deolivery is 100%, on 20.10.14, same day delivery is 100 and overall delivery is 100%, on 21.10.14, the same day delivery is 64% and overall delivery is 70% & on 22.10.14 same day delivery is 41% and overall delivery is 41%.
Shri Ram Dayal Bhagat, while working as SPM from 17.10.14 to
5. OA/050/00375/2018 25.10.14 is further alleged to have failed working online in Sanchay Post Modeule.
Thereby, the said Shri Ram Dayal Bhagat is alleged to have failed to discharge his duty sincerely with full devotion and alleged to have failed in day to day monitoring, and monitoring of delivery and supervision over delivery staff.
Thus, Shri Ram Dayal Bhagat is alleged to have violated the provisions of Rule 3(1) (ii) & (iii) and Rule 2 (2) (i) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964."
8. It is further noticed that on receipt of the statement of imputation the applicant has submitted his reply on 10.11.2014 and explained therein that in fact not a single article was kept as undelivered in his office but the articles pertaining to Bos (Sub Post Office under his jurisdiction) which were sent to the said Post Office for delivery. However, the delivery report was not submitted by the said Bos, hence delivery of concerned article was not shown as delivered. Moreover, to run the Sanchay Post Module the password was not installed to work on online. It is further contended that no training was provided to shoot out the internal problem or creation of new system. Due to internal error the computer does not show the 100% delivery report. To work online the password of PA installation is required so that that work may be done online. In this regard, he had contacted over phone with System Admin but phone is found switched off and he has not violated any rules.
9. On submission of reply the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order dated 30.12.2014 (Annexure A/1). It is noticed that after recording the brief history and charge leveled against the applicant the said DA has taken into consideration the submission/reply of the charged official which reads as under:-
" He has applied for CL w.e.f. 14.10.14 to 17.10.14 as he was suffering from high fever and body ache. During the period from 17.10.14 to
6. OA/050/00375/2018 30.10.14 he was suffering from fever and body ache. With ill health he discharges his duty with full devotion. Not a single article was undelivered during the period as mentioned in the memo of charges. The percentage of delivery is 100% perhaps there was internal error in the computer. The matter was communicated to the system admin. The system admin does not visit to shoot out the error after several requests. Further stated that the password of PA has not been installed to work online in Sanchay Post Modules as to work online computer seeks the password of PA. He keeps proper watch in r/o 100% delivery of article. Due to internal error the computer does not show the 100% delivery report. To work online Sanchay Post Module the password of PA installation is required. For this job he tries to contact with system admin over phone but his phone was found switch off. And lastly he prayed for dropping the memo of charges leveled against him."
10. After referring the above submission of the charged official the DA has recorded his findings which read as under:-
" I have carefully gone through the statement of defense adduced by the said Shri Ram Dayal Bhagat with reference to the charges leveled against him and found that the argument made by the charged official does not have any merit and not conforming to any facts. This is the duty of SPM to allot password to the PA for working in Sanchay Post Module. This fact alone highlights the complete ignorance of work and this itself is a serious negligence. Other argument made by the charged official in his defense is devoid of merit due to lack of any support of documentary evidence.
Order I, Parveen Kumar, Sr. Supdt of Post Offices, Muzaffarpur Division, Muzaffarpur under the power conferred upon me vide Rule 12 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 punish the said Shri Ram Dayal Bhagat with stoppage of two annual increment without cumulative effect."
11. Aggrieved by the above said order, the applicant has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and reiterated his defense. After considering the grounds stated in the appeal of the applicant, the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal and passed the following order:-
"6. I have carefully gone through the points raised by the Appellant in his Appeal along with other relevant records, facts and circumstances of the case with the following observation:-
7. OA/050/00375/2018 The plea put forth by the appellant is not tenable and the appellant has not raised any vital point in the representation for relief. The SPM is fully responsible for supervision of their BOs under their SOs jurisdiction.
There is no role of any Divisional Secretary and the appellant is trying to give political colour to whole episode. The version of the appellant, Sanchay Post software was not installed to work online is not correct and some accounts was already been opened by the appellant before issue of charge sheet and claim about hand phone of system admin switched off is also not correct.
7. I have gone through the order of the Disciplinary Authority and find that, the Appellant has not raised any cogent reason for relief in his appeal.
ORDER
8. Therefore, I, N R Meena, Director Postal Services, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur and AppellateAuthority in exercise of the npowers conferred upon me under relevant CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 do hereby Reject the appeal dated 25.03.2015, and uphold the punishment of disciplinary authority to Shri Ramdayal Bhagat."
12. It is seen that due opportunity was provided to the applicant by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. The applicant has filed his representation/reply which was considered by both the authorities. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned orders. Both the authorities have recorded their findings that the charge leveled against the applicant that while working as SPM has failed working online in Sanchay Post Module and failed in day to day monitoring and monitoring of delivery and supervision over delivery staff has been proved.
13. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that instead of proving the allegation in the charge memo the disciplinary authority travelled beyond the allegations made in the charge memo. The said contention is not tenable as the disciplinary authority has recorded his finding and the charge was proved. It is further contended that the
8. OA/050/00375/2018 punishment imposed with stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect is technically defective as period of punishment is not mentioned in the punishment order. It is noticed that the punishment awarded upon the applicant was "stoppage of two annual increment without cumulative effect". The order was passed on13.12.2014 and the effect of said punishment admittedly begins from 01.07.2015, i.e. first stoppage of increment and the second stoppage of annual increment falls on 01.07.2016. Therefore, the said submission of the applicant is also not tenable.
14. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. J. Ahmed reported in AIR 1979 SC 1022 and submitted that failure to attend the higher standard of efficiency in performance of duty permitting an inference of negligence would not constitute misconduct. An act of omission or lack of efficiency or failure to attain highest standard of administrative ability not by itself amount to or constitute misconduct. He has also placed reliance on the reported judgment in the case of A.L. Kalara [AIR 1984 SC 1361] and submitted that the disciplinary authority failed to appreciate an act or omission which has to be viewed in the totality of the circumstances surrounding it, it's likely or actual results, and the norms of human behavior to find out whether or not it constitutes a misconduct. He further placed reliance on the judgment reported in 1992 AIR SCW 2595 in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Ram Singh and submitted that though the word 'misconduct' not capable of precise definition, its reflection received its connotation from the context, the delinquency in its performance and its effect on discipline and the nature of the duty. In the case of the applicant the allegation leveled against the applicant cannot be said to be unlawful behavior or willful in the character on the part of the applicant. There is no
9. OA/050/00375/2018 negligence on the part of the applicant. Therefore, the disciplinary authority ought to have dropped the proceedings against the applicant.
15. I have examined the observations made in the judgments referred by the applicant. There cannot be any dispute with respect to the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments. However, considering the materials on record of the present case and the applicability of the aforesaid judgments, the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is noticed that the charge leveled against the applicant about his failure on working online in Sanchay Post Module as SPM of the Post Office has been proved. The explanation of the charged official, i.e. applicant herein that he was not provided password was not accepted by the concerned authority as it was his duty to allot password to the PA for working in Sanchay Post Module and this act of the applicant was considered as complete ignorance of work and serious negligence. Accordingly, based on the said material on record and after providing due opportunities to the applicant the disciplinary authority held that the charge leveled against the applicant proved vide the impugned order dated 20.12.2014 which was later confirmed by the appellate authority order dated 17.03.2018. The said findings of disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority cannot be said to be suffers from any infirmities. Accordingly, I hold that there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, no interference is warranted.
16. In view of factual matrix of the present case and discussion made hereinabove, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
[ Jayesh V. Bhairavia ] Member [Judicial] mps/srk
10. OA/050/