Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Pradeep Kumar Sethi vs D/O Post on 20 March, 2023
1 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015
Reserved on : 14.03.2023 Pronounced on: 20.03.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Pradeep Kumar Sethi, aged about 53 years, S/O- Late
Haramohan Sethi, Vill-Singipur, PO-Gangadharpur, PS-
Balugaon, Dist-Puri at present removed from the post of
Postal Asst. Puri Division.
..... Applicant
For the Applicant : Mr. T.Rath, Counsel
-Versus-
1. Union of India represented by its Secretary-cum-
Director General (Posts), Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-
110001.
2. Chief Postmaster General, Odisha Circle, At/Po-
Bhubaneswar-751001, Dist-Khurdha.
3. Senior Supdt. of Post Offices, Puri Division, At/PO/ Dist-
Puri-752001.
.....Respondents
For the Respondents: Mr. J.K.Nayak, Counsel
2 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015
ORDER
Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member (J):
The facts of the matter are that the applicant while working as Postal Assistant, Puri Division was issued charge sheet under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 vide memorandum dated 30.10.2009 (A/3). The allegations in the charge sheet were inquired into. The IO in its report dated 24.10.2012 (A/7) held that the allegations levelled in Article I, II, V, VI, VII and VIII are proved and insofar as allegations levelled in Article III, IV and IX are not proved. The allegations levelled against the applicant and the findings of the IO are reproduced below:
Article -1 Sri Pradeep Kumar Sethi while working in the capacity of Sub-Post Master Pallahat SO under Khurda HO from 01.06.2006 to 05.12.2008 did not prepare the S.O Daily Account of Pallahat S.O. dated 05.12.2008 by copying out the entries of S.O Account of Pallahat S.O dated 05.12.2008 maintained by the said Sri Sethi violating the provisions of Rule-29, Rule-98, Rule-99 of Postal Manual Volume-VI(Part-
III). Moreover, the said Sri Sethi has failed to hand over the charges of office of the Sub-Postmaster, Pallahat S.O. to his successor Sri Ramesh Chandra Jena in the forenoon of 06.12.2008 as per the closing balance of SO Account dated 05.12.2008 and thereby violated the provisions of Rule-46 abd 45 of P & T Manual Volume-IV read with Rule-268 to Rule-270 of F.H.B. Volume-1(2nd Edition) and as such the said Sri Sethi has committed grave misconduct.
3 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015Findings of the IO It is quite clear from the exhibited listed documents and defence documents Le Ext S-1, S-9, S-10, S-11, S-28 and D-1 corroborated through the depositions of SW-1,SW-5 and SW-12 that the Charged official Sri Pradeep Kumar Sethi had not made over the charge of the office to Sri Ramesh Chandra Jena PA, Pallahat SO on 06.12.2008 F/N as per the closing balance of Pallahat SO dated 05.12.2008 The self examination record of the Charged official of date 18.09.2012 and his written brief dated 20.10.2012 also strongly contribute to the fact that Sri Pradeep Kumar Sethi had not made over the charge of the office to Sri RC Jena PA Pallahat SO on 06.12.2008 F/N as per the closing balance of Pallahat SO dated 05.12.2008.
The argument made by the charged official that he handed over less cash to the PA Sri RC Jena on 06.12.2008 F/N because the aforesaid Sri R C Jena had handed over less cash to him on 05.12.2008 is not at all correct because there is no scope for assumption, presumption and supposition in the postal accounting procedure. The Charged official could have charged the shortage amount under UCP to tally the account. The CO was well aware about the rule as revealed from his cross examination.
Besides, it is much more clarified from the defence statement of Charged official of date 18.09.2012, from the self examination record of Charged official dated 18.09.2012 and above all from the written brief of Charged official of date 24.10.2012 that he had not prepared the SO daily account of Pallahat SO dated 05.12.2008 (Ext S-10) by copying out the entries of SO account of Pallahat SO dated 05.12.2012 (Ext S-9).
The CO has pointed out in his written brief that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity as regards permission because he was disallowed to exhibit the copies of some letters and documents. The CO further alleged that 4 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015 production of some documents/witnesses as per his requisition was denied to him.
As a prudent and rational man, I had allowed some requisitioned documents to the charged Official. Throughout the courses of inquiry nowhere either in the case of prosecution side or in the case of the defense side, natural justice has been denied. IA is not bound to concede to the request of the CO for production of all requisitioned documents/witnesses. The IA must see the relevance of the requisitioned documents/witnesses in the facts and the circumstances of the case. I have allowed such requisitioned documents/witnesses which I felt indispensable keeping in view the ethos of the inquiry system and pathos of the defense side because the IA is cautious of his role.
In his defence statement and written brief, the CO has attacked the then SSPOS Puri very furiously. The quintessence of his discontent is that the then SSPOS Puri extended illegal support to Sri R.C Jena, the PA of Pallahat SO of this case and did not respond to the report of the CO on many occasions pertaining to the misconduct of said Sri Jena. But these matters have no potency to disprove the charge because these are baseless allegations since these have no corelations with the charge of the charge sheet Above all, the charged official has agitated in his written brief that the prosecution deliberately did not produce Sri R.C Jena, the state witness. It is not at all correct. The inquiring Authority had already served notice to him several times to attend the enquiry but he was not found out in his address. So it is crystal clear that the IA had never shown soft corner to prosecution side rather he is impartial and unbiased. Thus, oral evidences and documentary evidences produced during the inquiry are clean, clear and cogent enough to arrive at IA's finding.
Basing on the records and evidences keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the charge of not 5 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015 preparing Exts-10 by copying out Exts- 9 and not handing over the charge of Pallahat SO on 06.12.2008 F/N as per the closing balance of Pallahat SO account Dt. 05.12.2008 stand proved.
Article- Il The said Sri Sethi while working as such retained balance of Pallahat SO shortage of the actual closing balance of Pallahat SO dated 05.12.08 to the tune of Rs 1,03,734.60. While making over the charges of office of Pallahat SO to his successor Sri Ramesh Chandra Jena in the forenoon of 06.12.2008, the said Sri Sethi made over an amount of Rs 74,017.02 instead of Rs.1,77,751.62, thereby violated the provisions of Rule-46 of P & T manual volume-IV, Rule-84 and Rule-85 of Postal Manual Vol-VI (Part- III) and as such the said Sri Sethi has committed grave misconduct.
Findings of the IO It is crystal clear from the exhibited listed documents and defense documents i.e. Ext. S-1, S-9, S-10, S-11, S-28 and D-1 corroborated through the depositions of SW-1 (Shri B.M. Dasmohapatra), SW-5 (Smt. Sasmita Priyadarsini) and SW- 12 (Shri M.M. Mohapatra) that the charged official kept shortage Govt. cash to the tune of Rs 1,03,734.60 on 05.12.2008 and made over Rs.74017.02 instead of Rs.177751.62 to his successor Shri R.C. Jena, PA, Pallahat SO on 06.12.2008 F/N. The charged official in his self examination has also admitted it. The argument advanced by the CO that Shri R.C. Jena, PA of his office handed over less cash on 05.12.2008 as a result of which he handed over less cash to the PA is not at all correct. The CO was well aware about the rule as revealed from his self examination. He could have charged the shortage amount, if any handed over by his PA, under U.C.P. But he failed to do so rather handed over Rs.74017.02 instead of Rs 177751.62 to his successor on 06.12.2008.
6 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015As such, the oral and documentary evidences are strong enough to arrive at I.A.'s finding as under.
Thus, basing on the records and evidences, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the charge of keeping shortage of cash and handing over Rs.74017.02 instead of Rs.177751.02 to his successor Shri R.C. Jena, PA, Pallahat SO on 06.12.2008 F/N stand proved.
Article -III The said Sri Sethi while working as such on 30.04.08 allowed one withdrawal of Rs 17000/- in SB account No. 444049 standing opened at Pallahat SO in the name of depositor Smt. Ramamani Behera without the knowledge of the depositor and without verification of the balance of the pass book with reference to the SO ledger card besides authenticating the withdrawal in SO ledger card and SO long book ignoring the said entry in the pass book account no. 444049 and thereby violated the provisions of Rule-33(3)
(b)(iv) of SB Manual Vol-1. Besides the said Sri Sethi has failed to take appropriate action to report the irregularity of non credit of the deposits committed by his PA Sri Ramesh Chandra Jena on subsequent dates to the competent authority as required of him under Rule-2(4) of SB Manual Volume-1 and thereby the said Sri Sethi has not only caused pecuniary loss to the Department but also has committed grave misconduct.
Findings of the IO The quintessence of the charge is that the charged official allowed SB withdrawal of Rs.17000 on 30.04.2008 from Pallahat SB Account No.444049 of Smt. Ramamani Behera without the knowledge of the depositor.
On the strength of the documentary evidences vide Ext. S-2, S-3, S-7, S-27 and Ext. D-2 corroborated through the depositions of SW-2, SW-10 and SW-12 it is clear that the charged official allowed the said withdrawal of Rs.17000 7 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015 from Ext. S-3 without verification of balance in Ext. S-3 with reference to Ext. S-27 But it is not conclusively evident that the said transaction was materialized without the knowledge of the depositor Smt. Ramamani Behera. This witness in the preliminary enquiry had given one statement on 26.08.2009 (Ext. S-2) wherein she admitted her signature in the withdrawal form (Ext. D-1). But during the oral enquiry she changed her stand and stressed that she had not signed in the said withdrawal form (deposition of SW-10). No doubt, both these statements are contradictory. Basing on the records and evidences, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the charges under Article No.lll stand unproved.
Article - IV The said Sri Sethi while working as such on 05.07.2008 suppressed a deposit of an amount of Rs.1000/- made by the depositor Smt. Satyabhama Nayak in her SB account No.444475 standing opened at Pallahat SO by allowing his PA Sri Ramesh Chandra Jena to enter the said transaction in the Pass Book, ledger card, authenticated the transaction by putting his initial in the pass book exceeding his own power causing pecuniary loss to the Department in violation of rule-31(2)(ii)(a) of SB Manual volume-I and Rule-41 of Postal Manual Volume-VI(part-III). Besides that the said Sri Sethi has allowed two withdrawals on dated 14.08.2008 and 23.08.08 amounting to Rs 200/- and Rs. 150/- respectively in the said account without verifying the balance of the pass book with reference to the SO ledger on the date of withdrawal against the entry of the transaction before allowing the withdrawals in violation of Rule- 33(5)(i) read with rule- 33(3)(b)(iii) and (iv) of SB Manual Volume-I. Further the said Sri Sethi has failed to take appropriate action to report the irregularity committed by his PA Sri Ramesh Chandra Jena to the competent authority as required of him under Rule-2(4) of SB Manual Volume-I and thereby the said Sri Sethi has committed grave misconduct.
8 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015Findings of the IO On the strength of the documentary evidences vide Ext. S- 12, S-13, S-7 and S-14 corroborated through the deposition of SW-6 it seems that the charged official had not only provided scope to his PA Shri R.C. Jena to suppress the SB deposit of Rs.1000/- from Pallahat SO SB Account No 444475 of Smt. Satyabhama Nayak on 05.07.2008 thereby allowing wrongful gain to the PA but also allowed the subsequent two withdrawals i.e. Rs.200/- on 14.08.2008 and Rs 150/- on 23.08.2008.
As Smt. Satyabhama Nayak could not be examined due to her continuous absence in the sittings of the enquiry, Inquiring Authority, in the absence of her deposition in the inquiry is of the opinion that facts and circumstances of the case could not be assessed fully without the production of the said witness in the inquiry. Hence, the charges under Article No.IV stand unproved.
Article-V The said Sri Sethi while working as such on 17.09.2008 suppressed a deposit of an amount Rs.1500/- made by the depositor Sri Chandra Sekhar Routray in his SB account No.440845 standing opened at Pallahat SO by allowing his PA Sri Ramesh Chandra Jena to enter the said transaction in the Pass Book, ledger card, authenticated the transaction by putting his initial in the pass book exceeding his own power causing pecuniary loss to the Department in violation of Rule-31(2)(ii)(a) of SB Manual volume-I and Rule-41 of Postal Manual Volume-VI(part-III). Besides that the said Sri Sethi has allowed two withdrawals on dated 29.09.08 and 03.10.08 amounting to Rs.2000/- and with reference to the SO ledger on the date of withdrawal against the entry of the Rs.1000/- respectively in the said account without verifying the balance of the pass book transaction before allowing the withdrawals in violation of Rule-33(5)(i) read with rule- 33(3)(b)(iii) and (iv) of SB Manual Volume-I. Further the 9 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015 said Sri Sethi has failed to take appropriate action to report the irregularity committed by his PA Sri Ramesh Chandra Jena to the competent authority as required of him under Rule-2(4) of SB Manual Volume-I and thereby the said Sri Sethi has committed grave misconduct.
Findings of the IO On the strength of the documentary evidences vide Ext. S-9, S-18, S-22, S-23 and S-25 corroborated through the deposition of SW-8 and SW-12, it is clear that the charged official allowed deposit of Rs.1500/- on 17.09.2008 and withdrawals of Rs.2000/- and Rs.1000/- on 29.09.2008 and 03.10.2008 respectively without verifying the balance in Ext. S-22 with reference to Ext. S-25. The CO has admitted the same in his self examination dated 18.09.2012. The plea taken by the CO that he was unaware of the transactions is not at all correct. The CO initialed against the transaction dated 29.09.2008 and 03.10.2008 in Ext. S-25 in token of verifying the balance with reference to Ext. S-22 and entered those transactions in Ext. S-18. Besides this, the CO did not take any initiative to call for the pass book as revealed from his cross examination on 18.09.2012. It is not only to evade responsibility but also to suppress the irregularity committed by the PA. As such, the oral and documentary evidences are strong enough to arrive at LA.'s finding as under.
Thus, basing on the records, evidences, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the charges under Article No. V stand proved.
Article-VI The said Sri Sethi while working as such on 09.06.08 and 23.06.08 suppressed the deposits of Rs.2400/-and Rs 1200 respectively made by the depositor Smt. Dami Dei in her SB account No.441189 standing opened at Pallahat SO by allowing his PA Sri Ramesh Chandra Jena to enter the said 10 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015 transactions in the Pass Book, ledger card, authenticated the transactions by putting his initial in the pass book exceeding his own power causing pecuniary loss to the Department in violation of Rule-31(2)(ii)(a) of SB Manual volumae-I and Rule-41 of Postal Manual Volume-VI(part-III). Besides that the said Sri Sethi has allowed two withdrawals on dated 18.10.08 and 05.11.08 amounting to Rs.700/- and Rs.2000/- respectively in the said account without verifying the balance of the pass book with reference to the SO ledger on the date of withdrawal against the entry of the transactions before allowing the withdrawals in violation of Rule-33(5)(i) read with Rule-33(3)(b)(iii) and (iv) of SB Manual Volume-I. Further the said Sri Sethi has failed to take appropriate action to report the irregularity committed by his PA Sri Ramesh Chandra Jena to the competent authority as required of him under Rule-2(4) of SB Manual Volume-I and thereby the said Sri Sethi has committed grave misconduct.
Findings of the IO On the strength of the documentary evidences vide Ext. S-7, S-15, S-16 and S-17 corroborated through the depositions of the SW-6 and SW-7, it is clear that the charged official allowed deposits of Rs.2400/- and Rs.1200/- on 09.06.2008 and 23.06.2008 respectively and withdrawal of Rs.700/- and Rs.2000/- on 18.10.2008 and 05.11.2008 respectively without verifying the balance in Ext. S-15 with reference to Ext. S-17. The CO has admitted the same in his self- examination dated 18.09.2012. The plea taken by the CO that he was unaware of the transactions is not at all correct. The CO initialed against the transactions dated 18.10.2008 and 05.11.2008 in Ext. S-17 in token of verifying the balance with reference to Ext. S-15 and entered those transactions in Ext. S- 7. Further the CO never took any initiative to call for the pass book as revealed from his Cross examination on 18.09.2012. It is not only to evade responsibility but also to suppress the irregularity committed by the PA. As such, the oral and documentary evidences are strong enough to arrive at IA's finding as under:
11 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015Thus basing on the records and evidences keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the charges under Article No. VI stand proved.
Article-VII The said Sri Sethi while working as such on 04.08.08 suppressed the deposit of Rs.500/- made by the depositor Sri Tikan Behera in his SB account No.442469 standing opened at Pallahat SO by allowing his PA Sri Ramesh Chandra Jena to enter the said transaction in the Pass Book, ledger card, authenticated the transaction by putting his initial in the pass book exceeding his own power causing pecuniary loss to the Department in violation of Rule- 31(2)(ii)(a) of SB Manual volumae- I and Rule-41 of Postal Manual Volume-VI(part-III). Besides the said Sri Sethi has failed to take appropriate action to report the above irregularity committed by his PA Sri Ramesh Chandra Jena to the competent authority as required of him under Rule- 2(4) of SB Manual Volume-I and thereby the said Sri Sethi has committed grave misconduct.
Findings of the IO On the strength of the documentary evidences vide Ext. S-7, S-4, S-18, S-26 and S-24 corroborated through the depositions of SW-11, SW-3 and SW-12, it is clear that the charged official allowed deposit of Rs.500/- on 01.08.2008 without verifying the balance in Ext. S-24 with reference to Ext. S-26. The CO has admitted the same in his cross examination dated 18.09.2012. The plea taken by the CO that he was unaware of the transactions is not at all correct. The CO initialed against the transactions dated 11.09.2008 in Ext. S-26 in token of verifying the balance with reference to Ext. S-24 and entered those transactions in Ext. S-18. Further the CO never took any attempt to call for the pass books as revealed from his cross examination on 18.09.2012. It is not only to evade responsibility but also to suppress the irregularity committed by the PA. As such the 12 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015 oral and documentary evidences are strong enough to arrive at IA's finding as under:
Thus, basing on the records and evidences, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the charges under Article-VII stand proved.
Article- VIII The said Sri Sethi while working as such on 17.07.08 suppressed the deposit of Rs.500/- made by the depositor Sri Manoj Kumar Mohapatra in his SB account No.443482 standing opened at Pallahat SO by allowing his PA Sri Ramesh Chandra Jena to enter the said transaction in the Pass Book, ledger card, authenticated the transaction by putting his initial in the pass book exceeding his own power causing Pecuniary loss to the Department in violation of Rule-31(2)(ii)(a) of SB Manual Volume- I and Rule-41 of Postal Manual Volume-VI (Part-III). Besides the said Shri Sethi has failed to take appropriate action to report the above irregularity committed by his PA, Shri Ramesh Chandra Jena to the competent authority as required of him under Rule-2(4) of SB Manual Volume-I and thereby the said Shri Sethi has committed grave misconduct.
Findings of the IO On the strength of documentary evidences vide Ext. S-7, S-5, S-8 and S-6 corroborated through the depositions of SW-4 and SW-9, it is clear that the charged official allowed deposit of Rs.500/- on 17.07.2008 without verifying the balance in Ext. S-6 with reference to Ext. S-8. The CO has admitted the same in his self-examination dated 18.09.2012. The plea taken by the CO that he was unaware of the transactions is not at all correct. The CO initialed against the transaction dated 06.10.2008 and 25.11.2008 in Ext. S-8 in token of verifying the balance with reference to Ext. S-6. Further the CO never took any initiative to call for the pass book as revealed for his cross examination on 18.09.2012. It is not only to evade responsibility but also to suppress the irregularity committed by the PA. As such, the oral and 13 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015 documentary evidences are strong enough to arrive at IA's finding as under.
Thus, basing on the records and evidences, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the charges under Article No VIII stand proved. On the strength of the documentary evidences vide Ext. S-18, Ext. S-19, Ext S-20 Article- IX The said Shri Sethi while working as such on 08 09.2008 allowed one deposit of Rs.10450/- in Joint-B SB account No.445126 standing opened at Pallahat SO in the name of depositor (1) Rajendra Barik and (2) Subhendranath Barik without the knowledge of the depositor and without verification of the balance of the pass book with reference to the SO ledger card besides authenticating the deposit in SO ledger card and SO long book ignoring the said entry in the pass book account No 445126. The said Shri Sethi further ensured the raising of balance of the SO ledger by his PA, Shri Ramesh Chandra Jena beyond Rs.20,000/- exceeding his own power and enabling him to sanction one withdrawal of Rs 20,000/- in the same day in favour of the depositor in violation of Rule- 31(2)(ii)(a) of POSB Manual Vol.I and Rule-33(5)(i) read with Rule 33(3)(b)(iii) and (iv) of POSB Manual Volume-1 and Rule-41 of Postal Manual Volume-VI(Part-I). Further the said Shri Sethi did not take appropriate action by reporting the irregularity of non credit of 37 deposits amounting to Rs.1,18,950/- for the period from 02.06.2008 to 03.09.2008 committed by his PA Shri Ramesh Chandra Jena to the competent authority thereby causing pecuniary loss to the Department in violation of Rule-2(4) of SB Manual Volume-1 and as such the said Shri Sethi has committed grave misconduct.
Findings of the IO On the strength of the documentary evidence vide Ext.S-18, Ext. S-19, Ext. S-20 and Ext. S-21 corroborated through the depositions of SW-6, it seems that the charged official allowed deposit of Rs.10450/- and withdrawal of 14 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015 Rs.20,000/- on 08.09.2008 without verifying the balance on Ext. S-21 with reference to Ext. S-20 and allowed Shri Ramesh Chandra Jena the PA to suppress 37 numbers of deposits from 02.06.2008 to 03.09.2008. In this connection it is to state that those above said transactions relate to Joint B SB Account No.445126 standing in the name of Rajendra Barik and Subhendranath Barik at Pallahat SO.
As the above noted depositors of the Joint B SB Account No.445126 could not be examined due to their continuous absence in the sittings of the inquiry, Inquiring Authority in the absence of their depositions in the inquiry is of the opinion that facts and circumstances of the case could not be assessed fully without the production the said witnesses in the inquiry. Hence the charges under Article-IX stand unproved.
Conclusion The charges under Article No.I, Article No.II, Article No.V, Article No. VI, Article No. VII and Article No. VIII leveled against Shri Pradeep Kumar Sethi, Ex-SPM Pallahat SO under Khurda HO under Rule-14 of the CCS(CC&A) Rules 1965 vide SSPOs, Puri Memo No.F6-1/08-09 dated 30.10.2009 and corrigendum of even number dated 05.07.2010 are proved. The Charges under Article No.III, Article No.IV and Article No.IX are unproved."
2. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the IO insofar as Article of charges I, II, V, VI,VII and VIII but did not agree with the findings of the IO insofar as charges under Articles III, IV and IX is concerned. In terms of Rule 15 of Rules, 1965, the DA forwarded copy of the report of the IO along with tentative disagreement note on the charges under Article III, IV and IX to the applicant vide letter dated 15 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015 18.09.2013 giving opportunity to submit his written statement of defence, if any, within a period of 15 days. Applicant submitted his reply on 24.10.2013. The DA vide order dated 29.11.2013 imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. Applicant preferred appeal on 14.01.2014. The appeal of the applicant was rejected vide memo dated 09.10.2014. In the above backdrop and backgrounds of the facts, the applicant has filed this OA inter alia praying for the following reliefs:
"(a) To quash the punishment order and the appellate order under Annexure-A/10 and A/12 besides the Annexure-A/3 and A/7.
(b) To direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into his service with all back wages.
(c) To quash the recovery order under Annexure-A/13 and direct the respondents to refund the amount to the applicant with interest.
(d) And to pass appropriate orders as may be deemed fit........."
3. Respondents filed their counter contesting the case of the applicant inter alia praying that the OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed. The applicant has also filed rejoinder trying to meet the stand of the respondents taken in the counter. The details of the case of the respondents and of the applicant would be dealt into infra.
16 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 20154. According to the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, the applicant has been charge sheeted and visited with the highest punishment of dismissal from service without due application of mind and without allowing him adequate opportunity to defend his case in compliance with the principles of natural justice. His stand is that applicant has been charge sheeted for his failure to supervise the work of Sri Ramesh Chandra Jena, Postal Assistant, Pallahat SO, which is not correct because Sri Jena was attending duty in alcoholic condition and making shortage of cash in counter. Sri Jena was previously involved in two fraud cases in two offices but no action was taken against him despite complaint made by the applicant. The applicant was posted in a double handed office where he was required to handle cash in the counter. Sri Jena was spending the cash collected in the counter and did not hand over the cash to the applicant. This fact was also duly intimated to the higher authority by the applicant. Sri Jena admitted the shortage of cash and deposited the amount though cheques. The applicant in course of hearing has prayed for production of the record vide letter dated 23.03.2011 but the IO disallowed the said request. One Sri M.M.Mohapatra, ASPO, Khurda Sub Division visited Pallahat SO on 11.12.2008 for verification but did not find any shortage of cash or 17 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015 postages. Sri Jena received cash collection of Rs. 51,410/- but effected payment of cash amounting to Rs. 1,97,050/- which establishes that there was no shortage of cash at the time of making over of the cash by the applicant to Sri Jena, Sri Jena has manipulated the entries in the charge report prepared that was initialed by him in good faith. In course of hearing, the applicant was not given opportunity to cross examine some of the prosecution witnesses and to produce documents to prove his innocence. Sri Jena although was a vital witness, was not allowed to be cross examine by the applicant. The statement of Smt. Ramamani Behera (SW-10) in respect of Article III was taken at the instigation of the authority. During inquiry, she deposed before the IO that she has transacted all the deposits and withdrawals with Sri Ramesh Chandra Jena but not with the applicant. The said fact was disapproved by the IO in its report which was not accepted by the DA without any valid reason. The statement of depositor Smt. Satyavama Nayak was taken insofar as Article IV is concerned without her participation in the inquiry and opportunity to cross examine. Sri Chandra Sekhar Routray (SW-8) has deposed that he has made all transaction with Sri R.C.Jena without the knowledge of the applicant insofar as charge No. V is concerned yet the applicant was held guilty.
18 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015The depositor, one Smt. Dami Dei, had deposed that she had made all transaction with Sri Jena yet he was held guilt insofar as charge No. VI is concerned. Similar statement was also made by Sri Tikan Behera and Sri Manoj Kumar Mohapatra against the allegation made in Article VI and VII yet the applicant was roped into the allegation without any justification. As the depositors did not turn to the inquiry, the IO has rightly held that the Article IX is not proved yet the DA disagreed with the findings of the IO without any justifiable ground. It has been further contended that the misappropriation of government money was also the subject matter of investigation by the CBI but the CBI submitted its report dated 23.10.2009 stating therein that the irregularities were committed by Sri Jena and applicant had no role on the same yet the applicant was held guilty and imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service. He has also submitted that adjustment of Rs.
72,155/- from the arrear pay of the applicant is illegal and in contravention of Rule 142 of Postal Manual Vol. III and as also bad in law since same was made without giving him any opportunity of being heard. Further, the contention of Ld. Counsel for the applicant is that it is seen that the allegation of charges under Article I was that while working in the capacity of Sub-Post Master Pallahat SO under Khurda 19 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015 HO from 01.06.2006 to 05.12.2008 he did not prepare the S.O Daily Account of Pallahat S.O. dated 05.12.2008 by copying out the entries of S.O Account of Pallahat S.O dated 05.12.2008 maintained by the said Sri Sethi violating the provisions of Rule-29, Rule-98, Rule-99 of Postal Manual Volume-VI(Part-III). He also failed to hand over the charges of office of the Sub-Postmaster, Pallahat S.O. to his successor Sri Ramesh Chandra Jena in the forenoon of 06.12.2008 as per the closing balance of SO Account dated 05.12.2008. In Article II, the allegation was that the applicant retained balance of Pallahat SO shortage of the actual closing balance of Pallahat SO dated 05.12.08 to the tune of Rs 1,03,734
60. While making over the charges of office of Pallahat SO to his successor Sri Ramesh Chandra Jena in the forenoon of 06.12.2008, the said Sri Sethi made over an amount of Rs 74,017.02 instead of Rs.1,77,751.62. The grounds raised relating to the aforesaid allegations in Ground I to IV, which was reiterated in course of hearing do not sound to appeal to judicial conscience that finding recorded by the IO which was duly accepted by the DA and AA are in any manner contrary to record more so when the applicant has admittedly deposited the shortfall amount. The stand of the applicant that he had deposited the amount under apprehensions of any adverse action by the authorities 20 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015 is not supported with any evidence. However, after going through the findings of the IO and other connected records vis a vis the dissenting note of the DA, we find force on the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that the dissenting note given by the DA in so far as charge III, IV and IX are not acceptable being contrary to the statement recorded before the IO based on which statement IO came to the conclusion that the charges are not proved. Similarly, the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that as the applicant has been given clean chit by the CBI, he ought not to have been proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings and imposed with the punishment is not acceptable being contrary to the law because the consistence view of the Hon'ble Apex Court is that merely because one has been acquitted in the criminal case that cannot be a ground for initiation of disciplinary proceedings and imposition of punishment for any action in violation of the departments rules/norms. It is settled law that the power of judicial review, of the courts, is an evaluation of the decision-
making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural 21 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015 justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry 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 or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, judicial interference may be called. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact. Thus, in the instant case, even if it is held that the findings of the IO providing the one or two charges are based on no evidence, it will have no effect for this Tribunal to interfere in the order of punishment because law is well settled that if the order of punishment is based on some proved charges, here in the instant case six charges have been proved out of nine charges, no judicial interference is warranted. We do not see any irregularity or illegality in conducting the disciplinary proceedings till its conclusion. It is seen that the applicant has been imposed with the punishment based on evidence by applying the principles of natural justice. We also do not 22 O.A.No. 260/00408 of 2015 see any ground to interfere in the order of recovery to make good of the loss of the Government.
5. In view of the discussions made above, we do not find any merit in this OA which is accordingly dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) RK/PS