Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Manoj Kumar Thakur vs D/O Post on 27 June, 2024
1 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00814/2019
With
OA No. 260/00166 of 2022
Reserved on 25.06.2024 Pronounced on 27.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
O.A.No. 260/00814/2019
Manoj Kumar Thakur, aged about 44 years, S/o. Late
Yugeshwar Thakur, resident of Vill Barahpathar, PO
Samastipur HPO, PS Samastipur Town, Dist- Samastipur,
Bihar, PIN-848101, now Inspector of Posts (PG) under
reversion (Gr. 'B'), O/o - SSPOs, Sundargarh, PIN-770001.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through its Secretary of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, At/P.O.
Bhubaneswar, Dist.:- Khurda, Odisha - 751001.
3. Postmaster General, Sambalpur Region, Sambalpur-
768001.
4. Director of Postal Services, Sambalpur Region, Sambalpur-
768001.
5. Superintendent of Post Offices, Balangir Division, Balangir-
767001.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. C.P.Sahani, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. G.R.Verma, Counsel
2 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022
OA No. 260/00166 of 2022
Manoj Kumar Thakur, aged about 47 years, S/o. Late
Yugeshwar Thakur, resident of Vill Barahpathar, PO
Samastipur HPO, PS Samastipur Town, Dist- Samastipur,
Bihar, PIN-848101, now Inspector of Posts, Sambalpur
Region, Odisha. (Gr. B).
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through its Secretary of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, At/P.O.
Bhubaneswar, Dist.:- Khurda, Odisha - 751001.
3. Postmaster General, Sambalpur Region, Sambalpur-
768001.
4. Superintendent of RMS 'K' Division, Jharsuguda, PIN-
768201.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. C.P.Sahani, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. B.N.Nayak, Counsel
O R D E R
SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):
The applicant while working as Inspector of Posts, Patnagarh Sub Division was issued charge sheet under Rule 14 of the CS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide memo No. IR/STT-5/Ch-V dated 01.08.2016 (A/1) containing the allegation as under:
"Article-I Sri Manoj Kumar Thakur, while working as inspector of Posts, Patnagarh Sub- Division, Patnagarh, during the period from 3 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022 03.08.2015 to 16.05.2016 did not inspect 6 (six) Branch Post offices due to be inspected by him during the year-2015.
Sri Thakur, by his above action displayed lack of devotion duty and violated the provision of Rule-300 of Postal Manual Vol-VIII & executive instruction contained in DG(P) letter No-17-1/92- Inspn dtd.16.01.1992 and 17-3/92-Inspn dtd.02.07.1992.
Thereby, Sri Thakur exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is un-becoming on part of a Govt. Servant in violation of Rule-3 (1) (ii) (iii) of C.C.S (Conduct) Rules-1964.
Article-II The said Sri Manoj Kumar Thakur, while working as Inspector of Posts, Patnagarh Sub-Division, Patnagarh during the period from 03.08.2015 to 16.05.2016 did not submit inquiry report on the allegation against the GDSBPM, Dholmanda BO and Mahulpati BO in account with Harishankar Road SO regarding fraudulent withdrawal from SB/NREGS accounts of Kendu Leaves beneficiaries and others.
The said Sri Thakur, by his above action displayed lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is un-becoming on part of a Govt. Servant in violation of Rule-3 (1) (ii) (iii) of C.C.S (Conduct) Rules-1964."
2. The disciplinary proceedings on the allegations quoted above ended with imposition of punishment vide memo No. ST/RO/15- 9/2017 dated 19.09.2017 (A/7) as under:
"Therefore, I, G. Gurunathan, Director Postal Services, Sambalpur Region, Sambalpur, taking all aspects into consideration, do hereby award Sri Manoj Kumar Thakur, IP(PG), Sundargarh Division, Sundargarh with the punishment of reduction to the grade of Sorting Assistant (SA), with immediate effect, for a period of 3 (three) years and he will be allowed to draw the pay and allowances that he would have drawn if he had not promoted to the Inspector grade. Further during the period of 4 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022 such reduction he will not draw increments of pay. On expiry of the punishment he will regain his original seniority in the Inspector grade. The period of reduction shall not operate to postpone his future increments of pay. This reduction will be a bar to the said Shri Manoj Kumar Thakur to get promotion to any higher grade or post during the period of such reduction. Shri Thakur is allotted to RMS 'K' Division, Jharsuguda. The SRM 'K' Division, Jharsuguda will take necessary action to post him in Sorting Assistant (SA) cadre in RMS 'K' Division.
3. The appeal preferred by the applicant having been rejected vide memo No. ST/RO/10-1/2019 dated 01.10.2019 (A/10), impugning and challenging the disciplinary proceedings, he filed OA No. 814/2019 seeking to quash the charge sheet issued under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide memo No. IR/STT-5/Ch-V dated 01.08.2016 (A/1) and the consequential order of punishment vide memo No. ST/RO/15- 9/2017 dated 19.09.2017 (A/7) and the order of rejection vide memo No. ST/RO/10-1/2019 dated 01.10.2019 (A/10) with further prayer to allow him to join in his original post of Inspector of Posts with all consequential service benefits.
4. While the matter stood thus, he submitted representation praying therein that since the punishment of reduction to the Grade of Sorting Assistant imposed on him vide order dated No. ST/RO/15- 9/2017 dated 19.09.2017 is expiring w.e.f. 23.09.2021, he may be 5 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022 restored to his original post of Inspector of Posts Offices w.e.f. 24.09.2021. The said representation having been rejected vide order No. INV/53-ROSBP/2019 dated 27.01.2022, impugning and challenging, he filed OA No. 166/2022 seeking to quash the said order No. INV/53-ROSBP/2019 dated 27.01.2022 (A/7) and to direct the respondents to allow him to join in the cadre of Inspector of Posts with further prayer to the respondents to regularize his service to the cadre of Inspector of Posts w.e.f. 24.09.2021 giving him full financial and service benefits.
5. Since both the OAs are interlinked and intertwined, though we have heard the matter one after the other, this common order is passed, which would govern in both the cases.
6. The case of the applicant in the OA as well as in rejoinder, which has been highlighted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant in course of hearing is that the competent authority appointed Inquiry Officer (in short IO) vide memo dated 19.09.2016 to inquire into the allegation and submit the report. The IO slept over the matter for three months and held the preliminary inquiry only on 30.12.2016. The IO without giving adequate opportunity to the applicant to nominate defence assistant to exhibit all relevant documents, hurriedly conducted the 6 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022 inquiry and concluded the same in three sittings holding the allegations as proved, which is bad in law. The GDS of the concerned BOs admitted that the applicant inspected the BOs in November/December, 2015 but the inspection could not be completed since records were not available/handed over by the BPM, who was sent to jail. 6.1 The persons, who were supposed to be examined as witnesses in connection with the allegation in Article II, were not called upon and examined.
6.2 The applicant investigated the matter but due to incorrect address of the complainant, it was not possible on his part to verify the genuineness of the complaint so as to do the further inquiry in the matter. The allegation relates to verification of huge number of documents and take statements of huge number of complainants, for which, some time was taken for completion of investigation by the applicant. Therefore, there was some delay in submission of the report, which was not intentional or deliberated but for the reasons stated above.
6.3 It is alleged that since both the Disciplinary Authority (hereinafter referred to as DA) and IO were predetermined to punish him, the DA without verifying/analyzing the report of the IO forwarded 7 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022 copy of the same to the applicant under the signature of a subordinate officer. It is submitted that he was allotted 100 numbers of SOs and BOs for inspection in the year 2015 apart from other multifarious work of inquiry, investigation etc. He had attended and commenced the inspection of five BOs, in question, but could not complete the same due to non-availability of record and for going on frequent to attend his son, who was suffering from serious illness. The allegation is not that the applicant was involved in any fraud or caused any loss to the department. The entire allegation is basically for negligence in duty, which also could not be established in inquiry and there is no evidence in support of such allegation. The allegation is failure to devotion to duty and not on integrity. The preamble of rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, cautions that the penalties in clause (i) to (ix) can be imposed on Govt. servant for good and sufficient reasons but he has been visited with the punishment without considering all aspect of the matters stated above. It is also contended that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and any penalty imposed, which is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the punishment imposed on him in the context stated above is grossly 8 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022 disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. For this purpose, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Thakur Vs. UOI & Ors, (1987) 4 SCC 611, and Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1983) 2 SCC 442.
7. The case of the respondents in the counter filed in OA No. 814/2019 and reiterated by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents is that the applicant assumed the charge of Inspector of Posts, Patnagarh Sub Division on 03.08.2015 and continued till 15.08.2017. As Inspector of Posts, it was his obligatory duty to carry out inspection of Sub Post Offices and Branch Post Offices and inquire into complaints and irregularities, if any. In terms of Rules, he has to complete all the inspections on or before 31.12.2015 and issue the inspection report. The applicant did not carry out the inspection Bichhubahali Branch Post Office (in account with Kantabanji Sub Post Office), Dholmandal Branch Post Office (in account with Harishankar Road Sub Post Office), Tankapani Branch Post Office (in account with Harishankar Road Sub Post Office), Mahulpati Branch Post Office (in account with Harishankar Road Sub Post Office), Mahubahali Branch Post Office (in account with Turekela Sub Post Office) by the end of December, 2015. He neither 9 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022 carried out inspection of the above noted BOs nor submitted report and, thus, he violated the provisions of Rule- 300 of Postal Manual Volume-VIII and instructions contained in DG (Posts) Letter No- 17- 1/92-Inspn dated 16.01.1992 and 17-3/92-Inspn dated 02.07.1992. 7.1 It is also stated that a complaint was received from Kendu Leave Pluckers of Bariapali village under Dholmandal BO against the Branch Postmaster, Dholmandal BO. A copy of the allegation of the Kendu Leave Pluckers and report of Sub Postmaster Harishankar Road Sub Post Office(SO) was forwarded by Respondent No-5 vide letter No- L3- 17/14-15 dated 13.08.2015 to conduct an inquiry against the Branch Postmaster, Dholmandal BO.
7.2 Another allegation was received from the villagers of Goura, Bariapali, Bahabal, Dholmandal and Baghuapada alleging fraudulent withdrawal from their Savings Bank accounts standing at Dholmandal BO and the applicant was supplied with the xerox copy of the said complaint and was directed vide letter No- L3-17/14-15 dated 23.09.2015 to investigate the matter.
7.3 Again a letter dated 31.08.2015 from Range Officer, Kantabaji (Kendu Leave) was received, along with allegation of the beneficiaries regarding non-payment of wages through Sub Postmaster Harishankar 10 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022 Road SO vide letter No- SPM/HSR-2015-16 dated 09.09.2015. Applicant was directed vide letter No- L3-17/14-15 dated 23.09.2015 to inquire into the matter.
7.4 Further, some Kendu Leave Pluckers beneficiaries of Gaindimal village under Mahulpati BO complained to the Range Officer Kantabaji (Kendu Leave) Range regarding non-payment from their Savings Bank Account. Copy of the letter No-503 dated 23.09.2015 of Range Officer Kendu Leave along with allegation dated 23.09.2015 of Kendu Leave Pluckers beneficiaries of Gaindimal village were sent to the applicant vide letter No- L3-17/14-15 dated 13.10.2015 to inquire into. 7.5 The Officer In-Charge, Turekela PS reported on 06.11.2015 to the Respondent No-5 that Sri Damru Majhi, GDS Branch Postmaster Dholmandal BO was arrested and forwarded to the Learned Court of JMFC, Kantabanji on 04.11.2015 for committing misappropriation of NREGS wages during the year 2013-14. The Applicant was directed vide letter No- H/D-15 dated 13.11.2015 to make inquiry on the allegation made by the police and submit detailed report. But, he did not take up inquiry despite series of reminders by respondent No-5, for such dereliction of duty, the applicant was placed under suspension by Respondent No- 5 with effect from 17.05.2016.
11 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 20227.6 It is contended that for the misconduct, proceedings under Rule- 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 was initiated against him. Despite granting time on his requrst the applicant did not submit any defence. Hence, IO and PO were appointed. During inquiry the applicant was provided all opportunities to defend himself. During the inquiry eight (08) numbers of state witnesses were examined and fifteen (15) numbers of documents were exhibited. The Applicant himself defended his case though he was given ample chance to nominate Defence Assistant from the very beginning of the inquiry. During the course of inquiry the Applicant himself cross examined all the prosecution witnesses and denied for his self examination. The Applicant did not submit any list of defence documents and defence witnesses. After conclusion of the inquiry, opportunity was allowed to the Presiding Officer (PO in short) so also the applicant to submit written brief. The PO submitted his brief on 15.04.2017 but no such written brief was submitted by the applicant. The IO submitted its report holding the allegation as proved 7.7 In the meantime, the applicant was transferred to Sundargarh Division, for which whole case was forwarded to the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Sundargarh Division. The Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Sundargarh 12 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022 Division was of the opinion that the case warrants major penalty. As the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Sundargarh Division was not competent to decide major penalty case of the applicant, he forwarded the case to the Director Postal Services, Sambalpur Region (Respondent No-4) on 05.12.2017, who is the Disciplinary Authority. Disciplinary Authority forwarded copy of the report of the IO to the applicant on 20.12.2017. He submitted reply to the report of the IO on 16.04.2018 in fact, admitting the allegations and praying to excuse. The DA, after considering the records of the proceedings, report of the IO and defence of the applicant etc., imposed the punishment taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, which was also upheld by the Appellate Authority (AA in short). In stating so, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that there being no injustice in the decision making process of the matter and the rules and principle of natural justice was followed in true spirit, this OA is liable to be dismissed.
8. Arguments were considered and documents perused. It is established that the applicant submitted his defence on 16.04.2018 (A/6) to the report of inquiry officer stating inter alia that "I had gone to all the 5 (five) BOs, 3 (Three) BPMs has deposed that I had gone. To my mistune 2(Two) have denied. Since the PMs prayed me for time, out of 13 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022 humanistic point of view, I allowed time. But being remained in their works, I failed to proceed again. I beg apology. That on the 2 nd allegation, actually I had directed one of my O/S mails Sri Meher to gather evidence. Being remained in other works we both get very less time for that I beg apology". It is not in dispute that the applicant being the Inspector of Posts, he had to carry out the inspection of BOs and submit the report within the stipulated time as per the Rules. But, he failed to discharge his onerous duties provided in the statute. When the matter was inquired into, he begged excuse by giving explanation for not discharging/dereliction in his duties. But, it is not the case of the applicant that he had ever, prior to the inquiry, brought to the notice of the authorities concerned in writing that reason of not completing the inspection/investigation to the complaint be it for his administrative or personal reason. Discharging of duty with due devotion, sincerity and in a time bound manner is a sine qua non. Thus, dereliction to duty is a conduct unbecoming on the part of a Govt. servant. On examination of the points raised by the applicant and materials placed in support thereof vis a vis the points raised by the respondents, with supporting materials, at no stretch of imagination, it can be held that there has been any miscarriage of justice caused to the applicant in the decision 14 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022 making process of the matter starting from the initiation of proceedings till its conclusion. As it appears, the whole effort of the applicant is to convince this Tribunal that the punishment imposed by the DA, which is upheld by the AA is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct by applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Ranjit Thakur and Bhagat Ram (supra), judicial interference is warranted. We have gone through the decisions relied on by the applicant noted above.
9. We may like to record that in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, a three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the High Court is not a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. It 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. The Hon'ble Court held as under:
"7. ...The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and 15 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022 according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. 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 in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence...."
10. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 749, again, a three Judge Bench of Hon'ble 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 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 16 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022 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 781], 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."
11. In the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Shashikant S. Patil & Anr., (2000) 1 SCC 416, the Hon'ble High Court held that interference with the decision of departmental authorities is permitted if such authority had held 17 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022 proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such enquiry while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was held as under:
"16. The Division Bench of the High Court seems to have approached the case as though it was an appeal against the order of the administrative/disciplinary authority of the High Court. Interference with the decision of departmental authorities can be permitted, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such enquiry or if the decision of the authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or if the conclusion made by the authority, on the very face of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion, or grounds very similar to the above. But we cannot overlook that the departmental authority (in this case the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court) is the sole judge of the facts, if the enquiry has been properly conducted. The settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution."
12. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held 18 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022 and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be ground for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. The Hon'ble Court held as under:
"7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record."
13. In the case of Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that while reappreciating evidence the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings. The Court held the parameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings:
"13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;19 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
14. As discussed above, the proceedings was conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with rules with due compliance of principles of natural justice. The applicant admitted the allegation of dereliction to duty alleged against him, which was also proved during inquiry. The applicant did not place any such evidence or stated any such grounds to the report f the IO holding the allegation as proved rather, he admitted the allegations and begged apology. The DA after considering all aspect of the matter imposed the punishment in a self contained order, which was also upheld by the AA. Taking into consideration the allegation, which was proved to be in violation of the rules, committed by the applicant, the punishment imposed on the applicant does not shocks to the judicial conscience so as to interfere on the same. Hence, the OA No. 814/2019 is held to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
20 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022OA No. 166/2022
15. In compliance of the order of punishment, the applicant was relieved on 24.09.2018. The SRM 'K' Division, Jharsuguada posted the applicant as Sorting Assistant in Sambalpur RMS vide letter dated 25.09.2018 to report as Sorting Assistant but the applicant did not join at Sambalpur RMS and remained absent from duty unauthorizedly by submitting medical certificate of unfitness. On 06.09.2021, he submitted representation requesting Respondent No.3 to post him in IP cadre. Thereafter, he submitted representation on 12.10.2021 to Respondent No.2 to allow him to join in the cadre of IP after lapse of three years from the date of his relieve. His representation was considered and rejected vide order dated 27.01.2022 stating therein that as he is on unauthorized leave and the order of punishment has not been implemented and in letter dated 28.01.2022 he was directed to report in his duty at Sambalpur RMS or else disciplinary action as deemed fit and proper shall be taken against him, which has been impugned by the applicant in OA 166/2022.
16. Respondents filed their counter objecting to the stand of the applicant by stating that since the applicant did not report to his duty 21 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022 at his place of duty in the grade of SA, it cannot be said that the punishment order has spent its force after three years. The order of punishment will be effective only after his joining in the post of Sorting Assistant and, therefore, the plea of the applicant that expiry of the period of punishment by remaining on unauthorized leave would automatically entitle him to be restored to his original post is unacceptable. The specific order is required to restoration to his original post after expiry of the punishment is required to be passed as per the OM of the Govt. of India dated 07.02.1964, which can only be issued after joining of the applicant in the post of Sorting Assistant. Since the applicant did not join in his reverted post, it cannot be said that the punishment has lost its force. Accordingly, respondents have prayed for dismissal of this OA.
17. According to the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, in compliance of the order of the punishment, the applicant was relieved from the post of Inspector and posted as Sorting Assistant in Sambalpur RMS. Therefore, the said order of punishment starts effective from 24.09.2018 itself. Due to his illness, he could not report at the place of posting in the reverted post, which cannot be a ground to take the plea that the order of punishment has not been given effect to. Therefore, 22 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022 after three years, the punishment is said to have spent its force and the applicant is liable to be restored to his original post of Inspector and rejection of his representation to the said effect is bad in law.
18. Admittedly, in consequence of the order of punishment, the applicant relinquished/relieved from the post of Inspector on 24.09.2018 and posted to Sambalpur RMS as Sorting Assistant but he did not report to duty and remained absent by submitting medical unfitness. Since, the applicant has already been relieved from the post of Inspector as the effect to the order of punishment and he ought to have been reported to the duty as SA but did not report, he is deemed to have been continuing in the post of SA. The above view is well supported by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh Vs. Jaswant Singh in LPA No.1852 of 2016 decided on 03.09.2019 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the punishment imposed in disciplinary proceedings is to take effect from the date the order is passed. Therefore, on his report to duty, obviously and axiomatically applicant's pay ought to have been fixed in the grade of SA from the date he was reverted to the cadre of SA till his restoration to the cadre of Inspector in compliance of the order of the DA and AA 23 O.A.Nos. 814/2019 & 166 of 2022 and after completion of period of punishment he will be restored to the cadre of Inspector. As per the GoI OM dated 07.02.1964, such an order can be passed on his joining in the post of SA. Insofar as regularization of his leave is concerned, it is up to the respondents to consider the same after joining and submission of the leave along with the medical certificate etc. as per the rules. Ordered accordingly.
19. With the above observation and direction, the OA No. 166/2022 stands disposed of. No costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) RK/PS