Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Mithun Kumar vs D/O Posts on 20 February, 2024
1
OA.No.294/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00294/2022
ORDER RESERVED ON:02.02.2024
DATE OF ORDER: 20.02.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
Mithun Kumar,
Age: 30 years,
S/o S. Ananda,
Ex GDS BPM Achladi BO,
A/w Saligrama S.O,
Udupi Postal Dn,
Residing at:
Shiriyara village & PO- 576210,
Udupi District. ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri P. Kamalesan)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by Secretary,
Department of Post,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi 110001.
2. Chief Post Master General,
Karnataka Circle,
Bangalore- 560001.
3. Post Master General,
South Karnataka Region,
Bangalore- 560001.
4. Superintendent of Post offices,
Udupi Dn,
Udupi-576101. ....Respondents
(By Shri S. Prakash Shetty, Sr. Panel Counsel- through video conference)
2
OA.No.294/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
ORDER
PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
a) To quash the I.O. report dated 26.02.2021 as endorsed by O/o Superintendent of Post Offices, Udupi Dn, Udupi- 576101 vide letter dated 21.04.2021, vide which the Inquiry Officer has held that all the seven articles of charges levelled against the applicant vide Supdt of Post Office Memo No. F4-1/2016-17 dated at Udupi the 31.10.2017 as proved beyond doubt.
b) To quash the O/o Superintendent of Post Offices, Udupi Dn, Udupi-
576101 Memo No. F4-1/2016-17 dated: 28-5-2021 (Annexure-A4) vide which a penalty of "removal from engagement with immediate effect" has been imposed upon the applicant.
c) To Quash O/o Post Master General, South Karnataka Region, Bangalore letter No. SK/STA/9-3/18/2021/1 dated 05.01.2022 (Annexure-A6) vide which the appeal dated 12.08.2021 preferred by the applicant against the penalty of removal from engagement imposed by the Supdt. of Post Offices, Udupi Division, Udupi vide his memo No. F4/1/2016-17 dtd. 28.05.2021, has been rejected.
d) Consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service, with all consequential benefits.
3
OA.No.294/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
e) Grant any other relief as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows:
a) The applicant was working as GDS BPM at Achladi BO a/w Saligrama SO at Udupi Postal Dn. The Superintendent of Post offices, Udupi Dn, initiated disciplinary proceedings under Rule 10 of Gramin Dak Sevaks (conduct & engagement) rules 2011, against the applicant vide Memo No. F4-1/ 2016-17 dated: 31.10.2017 (Annexure-A1). The applicant denied all the Articles of Charge 1 to VII. The disciplinary authority appointed an I.O. & PO. The inquiry was conducted initially by I.O. Sri Srinath, and PO Vasanth. Due to their transfers, Sri A.G. Maradi was appointed as I.O. and Sri Sunil Kumar as P.O.
b) The I.O. submitted the I.O. report on 26-2-2021 (Annexure-A2) holding that Article 1 to VII contained in articles of charge Memo were proved against the applicant. The applicant submitted his defence brief on 27-3-2021. The Disciplinary Authority, issued proceedings vide o/o Superintendent of Post Offices, Udupi Dn, Udupi-576101, vide Memo No.F4-1 / 2016-17 dated:28-5-2021 (Annexure-A4), and imposed a penalty of "removal of applicant from engagement with immediate effect".
c) The applicant submitted appeal to the Appellate Authority- Director of Postal Services, South Karnataka Region, Bangalore on 12-8-2021 (Annexure-A5) against the order of removal from engagement. 4
OA.No.294/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
d) The Appellate Authority Director of Postal Services, South Karnataka Region, Bangalore, rejected the appeal vide 0/0 Post master, General, South Karnataka region, Bangalore letter No.SK/STA/9-3/18/2021/1/ dated: 05-01-2022 (Annexure-A6).
e) The applicant submits that the charge memo contains 27 witnesses by whom the articles of charge are prepared to sustained. But the prosecution failed to produce 22 witnesses. They were not produced to identify their statements recorded earlier. There was no opportunity granted for cross examination of these witnesses, regarding their statements recorded, exparte. Therefore, the entire proceedings stand vitiated, due to violation of principles of natural justice.
f) The applicant submits that the I.O. has powers to summon the witnesses under rules, but opted not to exercise this power. Witnesses listed from Sl. No.23 to 27 were departmental officials. Based on their say the I.O. held that all articles of charges were proved. The witnesses 1 to 22 were the persons alleged to have deposited the amount in B.O. U/r. In the absence of their examination during enquiry, based on their earlier statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry, the I.O. arrived at the conclusion that Article 1 to VII were proved. This is against the basic principles of holding an inquiry. It is not proved during inquiry, that the amounts mentioned in Articles of charge 1 to VII were handed over to the applicant, nor it was established that the entries made in the pass books were in the handwriting of the applicant. 5
OA.No.294/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench There were no witnesses produced in the enquiry, to prove such charges.
g) The applicant submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kashinath Dikshita -Vs Union of India & others in Civil Appeal No.2571/1977 vide order dated: 15-5-1986, "a person facing a disciplinary proceeding, is entitled to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges against him in an effective manner. And no one facing a departmental inquiry can effectively meet the charges unless the copies of the relevant statements and documents to be used against him are made available to him. In the absence of such copies the concerned employee cannot prepare his defence, cross examine the witnesses, and point out inconsistencies with a view to show that the allegations are incredible". Therefore, the order of removal rendered by disciplinary authority is violative of Article 311 (2) in as much as the applicant had been denied reasonable opportunity of defending himself.
h) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of U.P. -Vs Shatraghan Lal and another in Civil Appeal No.2469/1982, vide order dated: 30-7-1998 held that "Statements recorded during preliminary enquiry - held if charged employee is required to submit reply to charge sheet without having copies of the statements, he is deprived of opportunity of effective hearing. Further held supply of copies is also necessary where witnesses making statements are intended to be examined against him in regular enquiry". The disciplinary authority 6 OA.No.294/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench failed to enclose the copies of statements of witness recorded during preliminary enquiry along with charge memo, thereby violated principles of natural justice.
i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nirmala J Jhula -
Vs State of Gujarat in Civil Appeal No.2668/2005 vide order dated:
18-03-2013, held that "the purpose behind holding preliminary enquiry is only to take a prima facie view as to whether there can be some substance in the allegation made against an employee which may warrant a regular enquiry. The evidence recorded in preliminary enquiry cannot be used in regular departmental inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it, and opportunity to cross examine the persons examined in such inquiry is not given, using such evidence would be violative of principles of natural justice". The statements of PW2, PW4 and PW5 who were not material witnesses and their depositions are not substantive and therefore they get no value. Their evidence could have been used only to corroborate the versions/ evidences of 22 public witness.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a) The applicant was working as GDS BPM at Achladi BO a/w Saligrama SO under Udupi Dn. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement Rule 2011) on 31.10.2017.
The applicant denied all the charges; hence an inquiry was initiated by appointing IO & PO. The IO concluded that all the articles of charges 7 OA.No.294/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench were proved against the applicant. The applicant submitted the defence brief. The Disciplinary Authority issued orders for removal from service. The applicant preferred an appeal against the order of removal to the appellate authority. The appellate authority rejected the appeal. Hence this OA.
b) Averments of applicant is that prosecution failed to produce 22 witnesses to identify their statements recorded earlier nor did it provide any opportunity to cross examine their statements recorded, exparte. Prosecution documents were examined by the applicant and at no point of oral inquiry he has disputed the validity of the documents. These documents are identified by the prosecution witnesses. He had opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. During the cross examination nothing was elicited in support of his innocence.
c) On 13.01.2017 one deposit for Rs 1500/- (Rs one thousand five hundred only) with date stamp impression was made in SSA PB no 3051156511. But the same transaction is not accounted in Sukanya Samrudhi Account journal on 13.07.2017. In RD account 3135652236 deposit of Rs 200/ -was accepted on 06.10.2016 and copy of the pass book is produced as Annexure R-5. Same transaction is not accounted in RD journal, copy of which is produced as Annexure R-6. In SSA 3036886709 deposit of Rs 500/- was accepted on 17.12.2016 copy of which is produced as Annexure R-8. Same transaction is not accounted in SSA journal, copy of which is produced as Annexure R-9. Applicant 8 OA.No.294/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench has made good all the defrauded amount to department by requesting SPM to accept the amount under unclassified receipts.
d) SPM, Saligrama sent a letter to Inspector Posts, Kundapura South Sub Division mentioning that there was misappropriation in SSA account 3036886709. Copy of the same is produced as Annexure R-15. All these documents are marked as exhibits in the departmental inquiry and identified by the investigating officer who was prosecution witness. Applicant did not raise any objection either while marking these documents as exhibits or during identification of the documents by prosecution witness and SPM Saligrama. He was given all opportunities to cross examine the witnesses who identified the prosecution documents. But he did not make use of it. When all the above documents are identified by prosecution witnesses in the presence of applicant, they have gained evidentiary values.
e) Applicant has clearly admitted in his statements that he was on duty during the days on which misappropriations took place. Date stamp impressions were made in the pass books after making deposit entries. Deposit entries made in the pass books were not reflected in the departmental accounts. When applicant was on duty on the days in which passbook entries were made with date stamp impressions, he is personally responsible for impression of date stamp, as BPM is the sole custodian of date stamp in the office. Even in the absence of examination and cross examination of prosecution witnesses, if deposit entries in the pass book were not reflected in departmental accounts, it 9 OA.No.294/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench is implied that applicant is creating false impression in the minds of account holders that amount is deposited in their accounts. Pass book is the vital document in the hands of customers and date stamp impression authenticates the transactions made in the pass book. Statements recorded during preliminary investigation were identified by prosecution witness in the presence of applicant in the oral inquiry. Applicant admitted all the documents as prosecution documents and thus they have acquired evidentiary value.
f) Collecting amount from account holders for deposit entries made is personal responsibility of official working in the counter and if he does not collect amount from customers, he has to make good the amount to department as deposit entries are made during the period in which he was working in the counter.
g) Contention of applicant is that copies of statements recorded during preliminary investigation were not attached with memorandum of charges and it was violation of principle of natural justice. In daily order sheet No 2 dated. 23.03.2018 it is clearly mentioned that "The copies of all the above inspected/marked documents are supplied to the CGDS". Copy of the daily order sheet is signed by applicant and same is produced as Annexure R-35. Hence contention of applicant is far from truth and misleading.
h) Applicant has examined the documents and admitted their relevance.
During marking of exhibits he had all opportunities to go through the statements. In case of any objections, he should not have allowed 10 OA.No.294/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench exhibits for marking. When he has allowed marking of exhibits and same were identified by prosecution witness in the presence of applicant, all the documents have gained evidentiary values. Hence contentions of the applicant are not tenable.
i) Notices were served to witnesses to appear for the inquiry. When the witnesses did not attend the inquiry in quasi- judicial proceedings, IO was constrained to continue the inquiry. But applicant himself has come to witness box and given his depositions. Hence claim of applicant that the findings of IO are perverted cannot be admissible and conclusion of Respondent-4 is justified from all angles.
4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
5. Briefly the articles of charge against the applicant were as follows:
ARTICLE -I The charge is that the CGDS is alleged to have received Rs. 11930/- on 05.12.2016 from PW -l of which Rs. 9930/- by closing the TD account no. 3052104825 and Rs. 2000/- by cash for opening of new TD account, but failed to account for Rs. 11930/- so received by him into PO accounts.
ARTICLE -II The charge is that the CGDS is alleged to have accepted Rs. 2000/- on 29.12.2016 from Smt. Susheela Shedthy towards deposit into Sukanya Samruddi account no. 3032262859 of her grand daughter, 11 OA.No.294/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench Kum Nisha, but failed to make deposit entry in the SSA passbook no. 3032262859 and SSA journal of Achladi Branch Post office and failed to account for Rs. 2000/-into PO accounts.
ARTICLE -III The charge is that the CGDS is alleged to have received Rs. 5000/- on 03.12.2016 from Kum. Pooja D/o Sri Mohan, Vishranthi, Post Achladi for deposit into her SB account no.0904882283 but he failed to write the transaction in the BO SB journal and failed to account for the amount of Rs. 5000/- into PO accounts on the same day of deposit.
ARTICLE-IV The charge is that the CGDS is alleged to have accepted Rs 500/- on 17:12.2016 from Sri Thimmappa Shetty on behalf of Smt. Sangeetha Shetty W/o Rajesh Shetty Achladi Post and village towards deposit into Sukanya Samruddi account (SSA) no. 3036886709, made deposit entry in the passbook, but failed to enter the deposit entry in the SSA journal of Achladi Branch Post office and failed to account for the said amount.
Article V The charge is that the CDS is alleged to have received Rs 1565/- from Sri Pradeep husband of Smt. Jyothi on 07.05.2016 for the monthly premium of RPLI policy no. 0000000123811 but failed to account for the amount on 07.05.2016 itself and failed to note the 12 OA.No.294/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench transaction in RPLI journal of Achladi Branch office on 07.05.2016 and misused the amount for his personal use from 07.05.2016 to 10.5.2016.
Article VI The charge is that the CGDS is alleged to have received Rs 202/- from Smt Meenakshi, Achladi on 06.10.2016 for RD monthly installment for RD account no. 3135652236 for the month of Sept 2016 with DF Rs 2/-, but failed to account for the amount into post office accounts and failed to note the transaction in RD journal of Achaldi Branch Office.
Article VII The charge is that the CDS is alleged to have accepted Rs. 1500/- on 22.12.2016 from Sri Sudhesh Kumar Shetty, S/o B Shekhar Shetty, Kallkatte, Achladi Village towards deposit into Sukanya Samriddhi Account no. 3051156511 held in the name of Sanika shetty Daughter of Sudhesh Kumar Shetty, made deposit entry in the pass book on 13.01.2017, but failed to enter the deposit in the SSA journal of Achladi Branch office and failed to account for the said amount.
6. All these charges have been held to be proved and the applicant has been imposed a penalty of "removal from engagement with immediate effect". The applicant has challenged the penalty imposed on him mainly on the ground that the depositors from whom he had allegedly accepted the funds, 13 OA.No.294/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench although listed as witnesses, did not appear during the enquiry. The applicant, therefore, had no opportunity to cross-examine their contentions. Hence their statements should not be accepted as evidence.
7. The applicant has further contended that the departmental officials appeared in the enquiry as witnesses, and the Inquiry Officer had relied on the statements made by the depositors before these departmental officials during the time of preliminary enquiry conducted by them.
8. The respondents on the other hand have stated that the statement of these depositors had been recorded earlier and were a part of the prosecution documents in the charge sheet itself. These documents were identified by the prosecution witnesses. Applicant did not raise any objection either while marking these documents as exhibits or during identification of the documents by prosecution witness and SPM Saligrama. He was given all opportunities to cross examine the witnesses who identified the prosecution documents. But he did not make use of it. When all the above documents are identified by prosecution witnesses in the presence of applicant, they have gained evidentiary values.
9. The respondents have stated that the applicant has admitted in his statements that he was on duty during the days on which misappropriations took place. Date stamp impressions were made in the pass books after making deposit entries. Deposit entries made in the pass books were not reflected in the departmental accounts. When applicant was on duty on the days in which passbook entries were made with date stamp impressions, he is personally responsible for impression of date stamp, as BPM is the sole custodian of 14 OA.No.294/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench date stamp in the office. Pass book is the vital document in the hands of customers and date stamp impression authenticates the transactions made in the pass book.
10. The respondents have also stated that notices were served to the depositor witnesses to appear for the inquiry. However, they did not attend the inquiry and IO was constraint to continue the inquiry. Hence it cannot be accepted that the depositors had not been deliberately summoned by the Inquiry Officer.
11. There are several court judgements where it has been held that in a departmental inquiry, the quality of evidence available is to be examined and appreciated by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. This Tribunal is not required to review the quality of the evidence which has been evaluated by the Disciplinary and the Appellate authorities.
12. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. ((1995) 6 SCC 749), a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court has held that power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the court. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. It was held as under:
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial 15 OA.No.294/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co- extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 16 OA.No.294/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench 718], this Court held at page 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
13. The Apex Court in the case of State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Chitra Venkata Rao on 29 August, 1975 (1975 AIR 2151, 1976 SCR (1) 521) has observed as follows:
"21. The scope of Article 226 in dealing with departmental inquiries has come up before this Court. Two propositions were laid down by this Court in State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao. First, there is no warrant for the view that in considering whether a public officer is guilty of misconduct charged against him, the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court must be applied. If that rule be not applied by a domestic tribunal of inquiry the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not a court of appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry 17 OA.No.294/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. The departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226.
14. The Honourable Apex Court in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 on 19 November, 2014 had observed as follows:
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that
behalf;
c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting
the proceedings;
d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair
conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;18
OA.No.294/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
a) re-appreciate the evidence;
b) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has
been conducted in accordance with law;
c) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
d) go into the reliability of the evidence;
e) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be
based
f) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
g) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its
conscience."
15. In the present case, the enquiry has been held by a Competent Authority, according to the procedure prescribed and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings. The Disciplinary Authority has arrived at its conclusion based upon the available documentary evidence. It has held that the applicant had indeed been guilty and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty while handling the deposits made by various depositors in the Post Office. The appeal filed by the applicant against the penalty order passed by the Disciplinary 19 OA.No.294/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench Authority, has been duly considered and then upheld by the Appellate Authority, through a detailed speaking order.
16. The charges proved against the applicant are certainly grave since they indicate a lack of integrity which is crucial to the functioning of the Postal Department. The action of the applicant betrays the trust imposed on him both by the Postal Department as well as by the public, as a public functionary, while handing money which is the property of the depositors.
The penalty of "removal from engagement with immediate effect" imposed on the applicant cannot be considered as shockingly disproportionate given the facts and circumstances of the case.
17. Keeping the above points in view, the OA lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
18. Accordingly, the OA stands dismissed. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/hy/