Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Rajendra Kumar Patnaik vs D/O Post on 23 July, 2024
1 O.A.No. 260/00388 of 2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00388 of 2020
Reserved on 11.07.2024 Pronounced on 23.07.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Rajendra Kumar Patnaik, aged about 61 years, S/o.- Late
Devendranath Patnaik, resident of At - LIG-988-K4, Kalinga
Vihar, Bhubaneswar, PS Tamando, Dist- Khurda, Odisha,
PIN-751019 and retired as Supervisor, SBCO, Bhubaneswar
G.P.O PIN-751001. (Gr. 'C')
..... Applicant
For the Applicant : Mr. C.P.Sahani, Counsel
-Versus-
1. Union of India, represented through its Secretary cum
Director General 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. Director of Postal Services (Hqrs), O/o Chief Post Master
General, Odisha Circle, At/P.O. Bhubaneswar, PIN - 751001.
4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhubaneswar
Division, Bhubaneswar, PIN 751009.
.....Respondents
For the Respondents: Mr. S.B.Mohanty, Counsel
2 O.A.No. 260/00388 of 2020
ORDER
Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A):
In this OA, the applicant seeks to quash the chargesheet issued to him under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide memo No. F- IV/109/17-18/R Pattanaik/Disc dated 31.05.2019 (A/1), for the omission and commission occasioned while he was working as Supervisor, SBCO, Bhubaneswar, the order of punishment of recovery of Rs. 90,000/- from his monthly pay starting from July, 2019 onwards in three equal instalments vide order dated 18.07.2019 (A/5) and the order of the Appellate Authority (AA) dated 29.05.2020 (A/7) upholding the said punishment, on the grounds, which have been highlighted by Ld. Counsel for the applicant in course of argument as under.
(i) Respondents admitted in the charge memo that misappropriation was committed by one Sri Sachidananda Pattnaik, LSG SPM, CRP Line Sub-Post Office, in different SB/RD/TD/MIS accounts. Applicant was working as Supervisor, SBCO under Bhubaneswar GPO. It is alleged that for the failure of the applicant to discharge his duties as per the instruction contained in 3 O.A.No. 260/00388 of 2020 Annexure to SB order 14/2015 (Addendum-II), i.e on Role of SBCO in CBS environment, the SPM got scope for committing misappropriation. It is submitted that SBCO (Savings Bank Control Organization) comes under the Bhubaneswar GPO. After introduction of the Core Banking System (CBS) in the department, instructions and guidelines have been issued for functioning of SBCO vide the SB order 14/2015 (Addendum-II) inter alia providing duties of all staffs of SBCO including the Supervisor. While making the allegation, the disciplinary authority did not mention in the charge memo which instruction/guideline of the said SB order - 14/2015 (Addendum-II) was not followed by the applicant or the details of any dereliction of duty or negligence. Therefore, the charge sheet being vague and unspecific, the applicant was deprived of reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Thus, the charge sheet was not in accordance with the DG Post instruction No. 114/176/78-Disc.II dated 13.02.1981 published below Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and, therefore, the same is not sustainable. 4 O.A.No. 260/00388 of 2020 Ld. Counsel for the applicant to substantiate that where the charge sheet is vague and unspecific, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law, has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Surath Chandra Chakravarty Vs. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1971 SC 752, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. A.Venkata Rayudu, (2007) 1 SCC 338, Transport Commissioner, Madras Vs. A.Radha Krishna Moorthy, (1995) 1 SCC 332 and Shri Anant R.Kulkarni Vs. Y.P.Education Society & Ors, AIR 2013 SC 2098;
(ii) By placing reliance on the decision in the case of Satyabadi Barik Vs. UOI & Ors, Swamy's CL Digest 1995/1 page 326, it is submitted that unless negligence is on the part of the Govt. servant and the manner in which the lapses had linked with the loss sustained by the government are proved, the order of recovery passed by the Disciplinary Authority is invalid, as in the instant case where DA imposed the punishment without establishing the negligence and as to how the applicant was responsible for the loss caused by the SPM.
5 O.A.No. 260/00388 of 2020
(iii) Similarly, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahavir Prasad Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1970 SC 1302, it is submitted that recording of reasons in support of a decision by a quasi judicial authority, in the instant case by the DA and the AA, is obligatory to ensures that the decision reached is according to law and is not as a result of caprice, whim and fancy. But, in the instant case, on a bare look to the statement of the applicant submitted before the DA and AA vis a vis the order of the DA ad the AA, it would be established that adverse decision has been taken against the applicant by both the authorities without meeting and answering the points raised by him. Therefore, the orders of DA and AA are not sustainable.
2. On the other hand, by placing reliance on the statement made in the counter, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that one Sri Sachidananda Pattnaik, working as LSG SPM, CRP Line SO for the period from 23.04.2017 to 15.01.2018, committed the misappropriations to the tune of Rs.10,42,387/- in six different SB/RD/TD/MIS accounts; TD Account No.3702378798, TD Account No. 3741047525, RD Account 6 O.A.No. 260/00388 of 2020 No.1770429633, RD Account No. 1770429466 and RD Account No.1770435849. The applicant was working as Supervisor, SBCO, Bhubaneswar GPO, Bhubaneswar-751001 and dealing with SB related work of CRP Line SO during the period of fraud. While working as such, he was supposed to work as per instruction contained in Annexure to SB order -14/2015 (Addendum-II) circulated vide SSPOs, Bhubaneswar Division letter No. SB-199/Misc/CBS/2016 dated 08.08.2016 (Role of SBCO in CBS environment) which was not followed by the applicant. As such, the inaction on the part of the applicant only enhanced the magnitude of misappropriation giving enormous scope to the said Sri Sachidananada Pattanaik for committing such more and more frauds to the tune of Rs.10,42,387/- for which the said Sri Pattanaik is responsible, for which, he was proceeded against under Rule-16 of CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1965 vide Memo No. F-IV/109/17- 18/R Pattanaik/Disc dated 31.05.2019 and finally, he was imposed with the order of punishment. Respondents denied the allegation of the applicant that the charge sheet is vague and unspecific. In every stages, due care was given to render justice to the applicant as per the norms and procedures. When the authority concerned with due application of mind came to the conclusion that any officer/official does something in deviation to the 7 O.A.No. 260/00388 of 2020 prescribed rules and procedure thereby causing loss to the department, the same is to be construed as misconduct as in the present case. Due care and caution was taken while preparing the charge sheet issued to the applicant. The DA after considering every aspect of the matter, imposed with the punishment proportionate to the gravity of offence, which was upheld by the AA in a well reasoned order and, therefore, this Tribunal should not interfere on the same. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parma Nanda Vs. State of Haryana & Ors, 1989(2) SCC 177 and in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow, 1994(1) SLR 516 and the decision of the Govt. of India issued in this regard. Accordingly, he has prayed for dismissal of this OA.
3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the parties and perused the records.
4. The allegation again the applicant in the chargesheet dated 31.05.2019 is as under:
Sri Rajendra Kumar Pattanaik was working as Supervisor, SBCO, Bhubaneswar GPO, Bhubaneswar-751001 and dealing with SB related work of CRP Line SO during the period of fraud. While working as such, he was supposed to work as per instruction contained in Annexure to SB order -14/2015 (Addendum-II) circulated vide SSPOs, Bhubaneswar Division letter No. SB- 199/Misc/CBS/2016 dated 08.08.2016(Role of SBCO in CBS 8 O.A.No. 260/00388 of 2020 environment) which was not at all followed up by the said Sri Pattanaik. As such, the inaction on the part of Sri Rajendra Kumar Pattanaik, SBCO Supervisor enhanced the magnitude of misappropriation giving enormous scope to the said Sri Sachidananada Pattanaik for committing such more and more frauds to the tune of Rs. 10,42,387/- for which the said Sri Pattanaik is responsible.
As such, it is imputed that due to aforesaid inaction, the said Sri Rajendra Kumar Pattanaik, Supervisor, SBCO, Bhubaneswar GPO has failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming on the part of a Government servant as required under Rule 3(1)(ii) and 3(1) (iii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964."
5. The applicant submitted his defence on 13.07.2019 denying the allegation and the basic points raised by him is noted down by the DA in his order of punishment dated 18.07.2019 are as under:
"1. Frauds are committed at Post Offices and it comes to the notice of SBCO later on and there is no machinery to judge the unpredictable behavior of the fraudulent officials and Supervisor has also no involvement in the frauds committed at Post Offices.
2. It is not categorically pinpointed in the imputations on what para or point he has not followed the instructions of SB order No.14/2015.
3. There was objection of SBCO vide No.128 dated 08.06.2017 regarding doubtful activities of the fraudster. Due to no action by Divisional Office on the objection, the fraudster get the scope to commit fraud.
4. Another advantage was given to the fraudster taking no action on the report of Senior Postmaster, Bhubaneswar GPO submitted vide No. SBCO/Misc/2016 dated 27.06.2017.9 O.A.No. 260/00388 of 2020
5. The SBCO will check the vouchers comparing with LoTs only. There is no necessity on the part of SBCO staff to verify the specimen signature of depositors.
6. The provision of SMS alert on cash withdrawals as per SB order No.12/2015 is not provided to the depositors causing multiple fraud at CRP Line SO.
7. He is not at all responsible for the fraud at CRP Line SO, he has not failed to maintain due devotion to duty and never acted which is unbecoming of the Govt. Servant."
6. The DA imposed the punishment of recovery of Rs. 90,000/- vide order dated 18.07.2019 by holding as under:
"On scrutiny of all related documents, it is observed that the memo of charges clearly indicates that the charged officer has not adhered to the provisions of SB order No.14/2015 (Addendum- II) causing enhancement of magnitude of misappropriation giving enormous scope to the fraudster for committing such fraud to the tune of Rs.10,42,387/-. The charged officer has contributed to the said fraud due to the negligence in duty and non-adherance of prescribed rules and procedures.
Sri Rajendra Kumar Pattanaik (charged officer) is too senior in service and entrusted to manage the SBCO section of Bhubaneswar GPO as Supervisor with help of some Postal Assistants deployed there who are junior to him. It is expected that he will interpret the ruling in very positive manner, work out the same in true spirit shouldering higher responsibility. But it is seen that he has neither interpreted the prescribed rules and procedures rightly, nor acted properly. Rather he has taken shelter of some irrelevant arguments to cover up his deficiencies in service. All the pleas taken by him in his defence representation are examined and found not convincing. Instead of giving clarification of the charges leveled against him, he has tried to blame the administration which reflects his scant respect to administrative discipline. The arguments raised by him in his defence representation are not tenable and hence not accepted. It can be concluded without any 10 O.A.No. 260/00388 of 2020 iota of doubt that the charged officer is absolutely guilty of the charges brought against him for which he deserves exemplary punishment."
7. The AA after taking note of the order of the DA and the appeal of the applicant held as under:
"Thus, I find that the lapses on the part of the appellant is quite serious in nature. As Section Supervisor, SBCO, Bhubaneswar GPO, the appellant has not discharged his duties and responsibilities efficiently as required of him. Due to his inaction, the SPM CRP Line SO got scope to commit huge fraud amounting to Rs. 10,42,387/- for which he is responsible. The disciplinary authority has rightly evaluated his lapses and issued the punishment order."
8. The specific allegation of the applicant is that since the charge sheet is vague and unspecific he was deprived of putting forth his defence effectively and thus, there was violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, I have examined the charge sheet. In the charge sheet it has been reported that the applicant while working as Supervisor, SBCO, Bhubaneswar GPO, was supposed to work as per instruction contained in Annexure to SB order -14/2015 (Addendum-II) circulated vide SSPOs, Bhubaneswar Division letter No. SB-199/Misc/CBS/2016 dated 08.08.2016(Role of SBCO in CBS environment), which was not followed by him and such failure enhanced the magnitude of misappropriation by Sri Sachidananada Pattanaik. The applicant has 11 O.A.No. 260/00388 of 2020 denied such allegation of any of his failure in discharging his duties and nothing has been stated specifically as to which duty he had failed, which had enhanced the magnitude of misappropriation by Sri S.Pattanaik. This Tribunal finds force on the said submission. Had it been specified pin-pointedly in the charge sheet, the applicant would have got the opportunity to answer the same. As is well known, charge sheet is issued to give opportunity to the charged official to put forth his reply and, therefore, time and again the Govt. of India issued instruction to the effect that the charge sheet should be framed with due application of mind and giving details of the lapses/misconduct. Ld. Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surath Chandra Chakravarty (supra), relevant portion of which is extracted below:
"The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the basic contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him."12 O.A.No. 260/00388 of 2020
9. In the case of A.Venkata Rayudu (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
"We respectfully agree with the view taken by the High Court. It is a settled principle of natural justice that if any material is sought to be used in an enquiry, then copies of that material should be supplied to the party against whom such enquiry is held. In Charge No. 1, what is mentioned is that the respondent violated the Orders issued by the Government. However, no details of these Orders have been mentioned in Charge No. 1. It is well settled that a charge-sheet should not be vague but should be specific. The authority should have mentioned the date of the G.O which is said to have been violated by the respondent, the number of that G.O, etc. but that was not done. Copies of the said G.Os or directions of the Government were not even placed before the Enquiry Officer. Hence, Charge No. 1 was not specific and hence no finding of guilt can be fixed on the basis of that Charge. Moreover, as the High Court has found, the respondent only renewed the deposit already made by his predecessor. Hence, we are of the opinion that the respondent cannot be found guilty for the offence charged." (Emphasis added)
10. Thus, on examination of the charge sheet with reference to the law discussed above, I do not have any iota of doubt to accept the stand of the applicant that since the charge was vague and unspecific, he was deprived of the reasonable opportunity to file his reply effectively.
11. Further, I have examined the order of the DA and found that the DA imposed the punishment without also specifying what was the work which was to be discharged by the applicant as per the rules but he failed to do so. The DA observed that it is expected that the applicant 13 O.A.No. 260/00388 of 2020 will interpret the ruling in very positive manner, work out the same in true spirit shouldering higher responsibility but now the question arose as to whether higher standard of administrative ability while holding higher post would constitute misconduct. This has been replied by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union Of India & Ors vs J. Ahmed, 1979 AIR 1022, wherein Their Lordships after making a detailed discussions held as under:
"...........Allegations in the various charges do not specify any act or omission in derogation of or contrary to Conduct Rules save the general rule 3 prescribing devotion to duty. It is, however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency, failure to attain the highest standard of administrative ability while holding a high post would themselves constitute misconduct. If it is so, every officer rated average would be guilty of misconduct. Charges in this case as stated earlier clearly indicate lack of efficiency, lack of foresight and indecisiveness as serious lapses on the part of the respondent. These deficiencies in personal character of personal ability would not constitute misconduct for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings.
12. Further, it is noticed that the DA took note of the points specifically raised by the applicant as noted above but instead of dealing with the points and carving out as to how the same are not relevant, imposed the punishment by holding that all the pleas taken by him in his defence representation are examined and found not convincing, 14 O.A.No. 260/00388 of 2020 which according to this Tribunal does not meet the requirement of rule and law.
13. It is also needless to say that the Appellate Authority is under obligation to take up each ground of appeal one by one and after examining them carefully and in detail he should have come to a considered finding. A perusal of the order of the appellate authority indicates that this not being done and without giving reasons, he has summarily dismissed all the pleas taken in the appeal petition characterizing them as irrelevant and devoid of force. Such an appellate order which summarily rejects all the grounds taken in the appeal without assigning any reasons is bad in law and cannot be sustained. It, therefore, has to be struck down. The above view gains support from the decision of the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in the case of Rajpal Singh Vs. Delhi Administration, in O.A. No. 1595 of 1991; 236, Swamy's Case Law Digest, 1996 and of the CAT, Ernakulam Bench in the case of P.Padmavathy Vs. Director General, ICAR, New Delhi in OA No. 1328/1995, 235 Swamy's Law Digest, 1996. Further, in the case of Pashupati Banerjee Vs. Dy. Chief Engr. N.E.Rly, AIR 1960 Assam, the Hon'ble High Court of Assam held that even in the absence of rules, the 15 O.A.No. 260/00388 of 2020 natural justice requires that the points raised in the appeal should have been properly considered and due weight given thereon by the appellate authority. Appeal cannot be disposed of by writing cryptic sentence that in his opinion the punishment should stand. But, the AA did the same thing as has been done by the DA. It is not out of place to absorb that the role model for governance and decision taken thereof should manifest equity fair play and justice. The cardinal principle of governance is based on rule of law, transparency and much create an impression that the decision making was not motivated.
14. In view of the discussions made above, I am of the considered view that the charge sheet being vague and unspecific deprived the application the principle of natural justice of meeting and replying the same effectively. Hence, by applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed above, the charge sheet dated 31.05.2019 is hereby quashed. In the circumstances, by applying the law that if initial action is not in consonance with rule and law all subsequent proceedings must fall since illegality strikes at the root of the matter, the orders of the Disciplinary as well as Appellate Authorities besides the laxity discussed above are also held to be nonest in the eye of law and are hereby quashed. In ordinary circumstances, we would have remitted 16 O.A.No. 260/00388 of 2020 the matter back to the respondents for taking steps in accordance with rules but keeping in mind the fact that this is proceeding under Rule 16 and the applicant has in the meantime retired from service, I refrain from ordering so. Consequently, the respondents are directed to refund the already recovered amount within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. In the result, the OA stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) MEMBER(A) RK/PS