Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Sarat Chandra Sahu vs Posts on 29 October, 2024
1 O.A.No. 260/00157 of 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00157 of 2022
Reserved on 28.10.2024 Pronounced on 29.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Sarat Chandra Sahu aged about 58 years, S/o Late
Mayadhar Sahu, Ex. Sub Post Master (L.S.G.).
Chendipada S.O. under Angul H.O. Angul-759124.
At/P.O.- Kandarasingha. P.S.- Parjang. Dist- Dhenkanal.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through its Secretary,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New
Delhi-110001.
2. Director General of Post, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
3. The Chief Postmaster General, Odisha Circle, At/Po-
Bhubaneswar, District- Khurda-751001.
4. The Post Master General, Sambalpur Region,
Sambalpur- 768001.
5. The Director of Postal Services, Sambalpur Region,
Sambalpur, O/o The Chief Postmaster General,
Sambalpur Region At/Po-Sambalpur, PIN-768001.
6. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Dhenkanal Division,
At/Po- Dhenkanal, PIN-759001.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.Jena, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. S.B.Mohanty, Counsel
2 O.A.No. 260/00157 of 2022
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The crux of the matter is that while the applicant was working as PA, Athamallik SO was charge sheeted under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide memorandum dated 25.08.2014 (A/1) containing four articles of charges. The matter was proceeded in accordance with rules.
The IO held the inquiry and submitted its report on 19.09.2018 (A/2) holding all the charges as not proved. The Disciplinary Authority (AD) did not agree with the report insofar as article I and IV are concerned.
Hence, the DA supplied copy of the report of the IO along with disagreement note insofar as Articles I and IV are concerned to the applicant. Applicant submitted his written statement of defence to the said report on 14.08.2020. Thereafter, the DA imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect vide order dated 04.02.2021 (A/5). Applicant preferred appeal on 12.08.2021 and the appeal having been rejected vide order dated 07.03.2022 (A/7), he has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985, inter alia praying to (i) quash the chargesheet dated 25.08.2014, (ii) order of deferment dated 28.02.2020, (iii) order of 3 O.A.No. 260/00157 of 2022 punishment dated 04.02.2021 and (iv) order of AA dated 07.03.2022, on the grounds as under:
(a) The charge sheet is not based on any genuine reason/ without any supporting documentary evidence/witness and, thus, is highly illegal and arbitrary;
(b) The IO after taking all the evidences and the statements held the allegations not proved but the DA disagreed relating to the allegation made in article I and IV without any basis rather being vindictive towards him.
(c) The DA imposed the punishment without weighing the gravity of the offence and, thus, the punishment is highly disproportionate to the common conscience.
(d) The AA upheld the order of punishment without due application of mind.
(e) The DA and the AA failed to take note of the fact that since the applicant was then working as SPO, it was not his duty to make entry in the sub office ledger regarding MGNREGS Muster Rolls rather it was the duty of the Postal Assistant, who should have made such entry.4 O.A.No. 260/00157 of 2022
(f) Similarly, the DA and AA failed to appreciate the fact that the allegation made in Article IV was completely vague and the IO has rightly held the same as not proved but the DA being vindictive did not agree with the report and made the disagreement note.
2. The above grounds have been reiterated/highlighted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant in course of argument and, accordingly, he has prayed for the relief claimed in the OA.
3. Respondents filed their counter contesting the case of the applicant on various grounds, which have been highlighted by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents in course of hearing stating inter alia that while the applicant was working as Sub Postmaster, Rajkishorenagar Sub Post Office, he received 33 nos. of muster rolls with cheques but he did not take necessary action as required under Rules for payment of NREGS wages within the mandate of three days for which there was abnormal delay in payment of NREGS wages. Similarly, the applicant manufactured money receipts by putting forged signature of auto drivers and, debited Rs.2900/- from Sub Post Office Account of Rajkishorenagar SO and took payment of conveyance charges towards 5 O.A.No. 260/00157 of 2022 expenditure on conveyance of cash from Account Office to different Branch Offices although the concerned Branch Post Masters have conveyed special remittances on their own arrangement without taking conveyance charges for payment of wages under NREGS to beneficiaries. Similarly the applicant purchased petrol by maintaining log book with false load shedding to justify purchase of petrol. It is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority after going through the representation of the applicant found that the charges against the applicant were clear, distinct and particular that the applicant received 33 numbers of muster rolls from 03.01.2013 to 07.03.2013 and delayed the process of entry of transactions in SO ledger with respect to muster rolls and did not forward to concerned Branch Post Office for payment of wages for which payment of wages at Branch Post Offices under Rajkishorengar SO was delayed. In spite of that notice, the applicant did not care to send the muster rolls to concerned BOs for which the dissatisfied beneficiaries sat on " Dharana" on 10.04.2013. Further, as regards to the charges of purchase of petrol for office genset and conveyance of petrol from M/s Keshab Filling, Station, Boinda to Rajkishorenagar SO, it is not disputed that an amount of Rs.27000/-
6 O.A.No. 260/00157 of 2022towards purchase of petrol and amount of Rs.10800/- towards conveyance of petrol from M/s Keshab Filling Station, Boinda to Rajkishorenagar SO shown to have been spent by the applicant from Govt. exchequer during the period from 17.12.2012 to 28.03.2013. Shri Chaitanya Naik, Ex-Sub Postmaser, Rajkishorengar SO has deposed that during his incumbency as Sub Postmaster, Rajkishorenagar SO he was purchasing petrol for Genset from local market. Thus, although fuel was available at Rajkishorengar SO, i.e. the same station where the Post office exists, the applicant resorted to follow costly and unjustified practice of purchase of fuel from a distant place like Boinda and incurred expenditure of high amount of Rs.400/- per trip as conveyance charge. Further, it was found that after installation of new batteries for Rajkishorenagar SO, from 24.01.2013 to 28.03.2013 during office hours except Sundays/ Holidays power cut was done for 21 hours 57 minutes, while Genset was shown running for 81 hours 15 minutes to justify expenditure of Rs.12000/- towards purchase of petrol and Rs.4800/- towards its conveyance charges made by him. The IO held the charges I to IV as not proved. But, the DA did not agree with the report to the IO insofar as the allegations made in Article I & IV are 7 O.A.No. 260/00157 of 2022 concerned. Accordingly, in accordance with the rules, disagreement note was supplied to the applicant, against which he submitted his defence and taking into consideration all aspect of the mater, the DA with due application of mind imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement which was also upheld by the AA in a reasoned and speaking order. It is submitted that judicial interference in the disciplinary proceedings is no more res integra and as per the authority of various courts such interference can be made only where there has been infraction of rules and procedure provided therein, proceeding was initiated by an authority who was not competent to do so, in a case of no evidence and or where there has been any gross violation of principles of natural justice. But, in the present case, since the proceedings were initiated and concluded strictly in accordance with rules after giving adequate opportunity to the applicant hence no judicial interference is warranted and the OA is liable to be dismissed.
4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant took us to the allegation made in the articles I and IV, which was held by the IO as not proved but on which the DA did not agree and recorded his disagreement, based on which, the applicant was punished. The allegations made in Article 1 and IV, 8 O.A.No. 260/00157 of 2022 the relevant portion of the findings of the IO and the disagreement note are produced hereunder:
"Article I Sri Sarat Chandra Sahu, PA, Athamallik S.O. while working as SPM, Rajkishorenagar S.O during the period from 27.06.2012 to 10.04.2013 received 33 number of MGNREGS Muster Rolls along with cheques during January-2013 to March-2013 from the BPMs. The said Sri Sahu did not return the said muster rolls to corresponding BOs immediately for effecting payment after making necessary entry in the S.O. ledger. The Muster Rolls were retained in his custody for months together in contravention of Circle Office, Bhubaneswar instructions contained in letter No. SB-1-135/2007 dated 06.06.2008 circulated vide SPOs, Dhenkanal letter No. SB- 1/Rig/NREGS/08 dated 11.06.2008.
It is therefore alleged that Sri Sarat Chandra Sahu in the capacity of SPM. Rajkishorenagar SO failed to maintain due devotion to duty as enjoined in Rule 3 (1) (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-IV Sri Sarat Chandra Sahu, PA, Athamallik S.O. while working in the aforesaid capacity during the aforesaid period took payment of Rs 1000/- on each occasion showing purchase of petrol producing false bills obtaining from M/S Keshab Filling Station, Boinda. Further Sri Sahu took payment @ Rs 400/- on each occasion on account of Auto Trolley charge from Rajkishorenagar to Boinda and vice versa showing conveyance of petrol from Boinda by manufacturing false money receipts and put the department in pecuniary loss of Rs 37800/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand eight hundred only). By the above acts, Sri Sahu violated the provisions of Rule 58 and 340 of Posts and Telegraphs Financial Hand Book, Volume-I. It is therefore alleged that Sri Sarat Chandra Sahu in the capacity of SPM, Rajkishorenagar SO failed to maintain absolute integrity, due devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming on the 9 O.A.No. 260/00157 of 2022 part of a Govt. Servant as enjoined in Rule 3 (1) (i), 3 (1) (ii) and 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Relevant portion of the findings of the IO in Article I The CO has not got scope and opportunity to face the allegation effectively. Moreover, it is not understood as to how the NEWS flashed in DAILY SAMBAD on 17-03-2013 about MASS DHARANA, though the beneficiaries sat on DHARANA on 10-04-2013.
Sri Biseswar Pradhan, GDSBPM, Raniakata BO (SW-6) has deposed on 22-03-2017 during cross examination that the MGNREGS beneficiaries of his BO have not lodged any complaint through him regarding delay in MGNREGS payments. He has also stated that the department has not given any instruction to him specifying time limit within which the MGNREGS money will be paid to the beneficiaries. He also stated that he has no knowledge about the e- Mail complaint preferred by TALDAR job card holders and others of Raniakata GP to the Supdt of Post, Dhenkanal division. During cross examination, SW-I also stated that no instructions were received from higher authorities about the time limit of MGNREGS payments at BOs.
It is alleged that the instructions contained in Circle office, Bhubaneswar letter no-SB-1-135/2007 dated the 06-06-2008 circulated vide Spos, Dhenkanal letter no SB-1/Rig/NREGS/08 dated the 11-06-2008 were violated by the CO. But the said letters were not annexed in Annexure-III to give opportunity to the CO for holding his responsibility for non-compliance of order or to cross examine the other SWs. The CO has stated in his brief that, he was also not aware of the above stated circulars as it were not circulated to him while working at that time elsewhere in the capacity of other Posts but not as SPM anywhere. Hence the charge cannot be sustained as detailed proof has not been produced as to whether the above said circulars were dully circulated to the CO and his acquittance taken.
Sri Satyabrata Mishra, ex-PA, R K Nagar SO (SW-19) confirmed Ext- S-156. He has deposed during oral inquiry that some NREGS schedules were in deposit at R K Nagar SO for sending to BOs as stated by him in Ext-5- 156 due to heavy work load of RK Nagar SO 10 O.A.No. 260/00157 of 2022 which have 14 numbers of BOs. He has stated in his written statement dated 08-03-2013 (Ext-S-156) that he has failed to dispose of the MGNREGS Schedules to BOs due to heavy work load in reply to question put to him by SW-21 regarding keeping deposit of 44 nos of MGNREGS schedules at his office being received during 03-01-2013 to 07-03-2013 without any ledger entry and without disposing to the concerned BOs for payment. Further Sw-21 has deposed during examination that 2 nos of written statement of the CO dated 08-03-2013 ie. Ext-S-207 and Ext-S-208 were recorded in question answer format and the same are genuine. The CO has stated in Ext-S-207 and Ext-S-208 that the MGNREGS schedules were handed over to the concerned counter PA who was advised for posting in the ledger, but he was not able to post in the ledger during working hours due to heavy work load of the office. Hence the charged framed against the CO for retaining the MGNREGS muster rolls deliberately in his custody for months together was not proved.
On the basis of documentary and oral evidences adduced during the enquiry and in view of the foregoing discussions, the charge framed against the CO in Article-1 is not proved.
Relevant portion of the findings of the IO in Article IV In course of cross examination Sri T K Debata, the then IP Angul West sub-division, has admitted that the bills are genuine particularly the cash memos of petrol. He also admitted that he has not examined to the proprietor manager M/s Keshav filling station, Boinda regarding purchase of petrol vide Ext-S-174 to Ext-S-190, He also further stated that when the SPM is self certifying that the amount of petrol purchased is for gen-set use for his office only, so there is no doubt over the bills to be fake one for which he did not enquire into it and revealed that the bills are genuine. He also further admitted that he has not obtained written statement of GDS officials after showing them the concerned vouchers/ money receipts in which they have signed as witness/ payee. Further he admitted during cross examination that Sri Trilochan Nayak and the concerned GDS officials have forgotten to put the date below their signature in their written statements which were recorded on 11-06-2013.
11 O.A.No. 260/00157 of 2022Sri T K Debata, the then IP Angul west Sub-divism (SW-21) also perused Ext-S-155, Ext-S-204,Ext-S- 205& Ext-S-206 and deposed during inquiry that Ext-S-204 to Ext-S-206 are genuine which were sent by the CO to the SPos, Dhenkanal division along with log book and bills paid vouchers for adjustment of cash advance of R K Nagar SO. He also confirmed the written statement of the CO dated 10-04- 2013 recorded by him ie.Ext-S-155. From the above said documents, it is found that the CO had submitted the copy of log book of the concerned period of utilization of generator due to little back-up of the UPS and due to excess power failure/ low voltage as the case may be for sanction of the bills of purchase of petrol for adjustment of cash advance. The CO has also stated in Ext- S-155 that the gen-set of his office has also been used due to power failure/ low voltage. It is found that there is no entry of total time of load shedding in Ext-S-210 i.e. copy of log book of RK Nagar SO from 31-10-2012 to 28-03-2013 maintained by the CO. The CO has only noted total time (running time of gen-set) in Ext-5-210 which has not questioned at any stage and annexed in the memorandum of charge. Hence the same cannot be compared with the Ext-S-211 i.e. copy of feeder interruption register maintained in the office of JE, Electrical Bamur 02-12-2012 to 28- 03-2013. Moreover, Ext-S-211 has not been exhibited through the proper authority nor has nobody been produced to give evidence against fictitious failure of electricity. Hence the charge stands uncorroborated. Further it is alleged that the CO has took payment of Rs.1000/- on each occasion showing purchase of petrol producing false bills from M/s Keshav filling station, Boinda and put the department in pecuniary loss of Rs.27000/- Further from Ext-S-81 to Eat-S-100, ExtS-101 to Ext-S-140 it is found that the payment of Rs.1000/- on each occasion towards of purchase of petrol vide Ext-S-150, Ext-S- 151, Ext-S-159 to Ext-S-166 & Ext-S-174 to Ext-S-190 has not taken into the account of R K Nagar SO on the concerned dates. Moreover, the CO has submitted the bills for sanction towards purchase of petrol to the Spos, Dhenkanal division vide Ext-S-204, Ext-S-205 and Ext-S-206. Hence it is not evident to arrive that the CO has taken payments of Rs.1000/- on each occasion showing purchase of petrol producing false bills obtaining from M/s Keshav filling station, Boinda.
12 O.A.No. 260/00157 of 2022On the basis of documentary and oral evidences adduced during the enquiry and in view of the foregoing discussions, the charge framed against the CO in Article-IV is not proved.
Relevant portion of the disagreement note in Article I Through all the evidences it is very much clear that the payment of NREGS wages at Rajkishore Nagar SO was delayed for the period ranging between 12 to 90 days for which the wage earners raised the resentment through Dharana. The Inquiry Officer has held the charges under Article-l as not proved despite overwhelming evidences adduced during the inquiry in support of the charges which prove delay in payment of NREGS wages. The Inquiry Officer has apparently relied on the contention of the charged official about the lack of evidence about receipt/circular of instructions contained in Chief Postmaster General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar letter No.SB-1-135/2007 dated 06.06:2008 circulated vide SPOS, Dhenkanal letter No. SB-1/RIg/NREGS/08 dated 11.06.2008 to the charged official in particular for which the charged official was not aware of the time line for payment of the wages and no proof about the alleged demonstration as reportedly published in the SAMBAD on 17.03.2013 was produced in the inquiry. Such arguments which have been accepted by the 1.0. to hold the charges not proved under Article-l is preposterous. It is found that the charged official had requested the circular letter of Circle Office/ Divisional Office as a defence document from his side. Though the document was very much available in the inquiry on being requisitioned by the defence side, the charged official chose not to get the same exhibited to bring it as an evidence obviously because such evidence would have gone against him. It is obligatory on the part of the Govt. servant to discharge his entrusted duties with due promptness but in this case as per the evidences adduced during the inquiry the payment of NREGS wages was delayed for period up to 90 days. This aspect itself proves the charges under Article-l against the charged official who cannot take a shelter behind the plea of non supply of proof in the inquiry regarding the circulation particulars of the aforesaid circulars of Circle 13 O.A.No. 260/00157 of 2022 Office/ Divisional Office. As such I disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer in respect of charges under Article-I and hold the charges under said Article as proved fully beyond any reasonable doubt.
Relevant portion of the disagreement note in Article IV It is clearly stated by Shri Chaitanya Naik, Ex-SPM, Rajkishore Nagar S.O. (SW-15) before the inquiry through his deposition dated 21.06.2017 that the fuel for the generator was available at Rajkishore Nagar for which he used to purchase it during his incumbency as SPM. Rajkishore Nagar S.O. It is very much clear from this piece of evidence that though fuel was available at Rajkishore Nagare the same station where the Post office exists the charged official resorted to follow the practice of showing purchase of fuel from a distant place like Boinda and incurred expenditure of high amount of Rs 400/- per trip as conveyance charge. This shows that the charged official acted malafide in resorting to the irregular practice of showing purchase of fuel from a distant place and incurred expenditure in conveyance of the same and thereby put the Department into avoidable and unnecessary expenditure. The evidence adduced through document Ext-S-211 disputes the information about load shedding as particularised in the Log Book exhibited as Ext-S- 210 which again goes to prove the malafide intention of the charged official, it is observed that the Inquiry Officer has held the charges under this Article as not proved accepting the contention of the charged official that nobody from the Electricity Department appeared as a witness to testify the authenticity of the information contained the document exhibited as Ext-S-211 and that nobody from M/S Keshab Filling Station, Boinda appeared in the inquiry to testify to support the charge that fuel purchase vouchers (Ext-S-174 to Ext-S-190) were fake. It is true that such witnesses were not produced from the side of Disciplinary Authority to testify the authenticity of these documents so produced in the inquiry. But by no means the evidences produced from the side of Disciplinary Authority in support of charges has diminished in view of the fact 14 O.A.No. 260/00157 of 2022 that several corroborative evidences have been adduced in support of the charges through the witnesses produced in the inquiry from the side of Disciplinary Authority. Though fuel for generator was available locally at Rajkishore Nagar, the charged official followed the practice of showing purchase of fuel from outstation and also showed expenditure for conveyance of the fuel which was unnecessary as per the evidence adduced through document Ext-S-211 supported by the deposition of SW-21. There was no necessity for purchase of the fuel as was done through the documents exhibited as Ext-S-174 to Ext-S- 190. If the purchase of fuel was genuine and the conveyance charges for fuel was actually incurred for genuine purpose the charged official was free to produce supporting evidence from his side as the scope was very much available for him to do so during the inquiry. But instead of providing supporting evidence he relied on the minor omissions like not putting signature of witnesses in the written statements, finding fault with investigation process etc to support his argument which has been accepted unreasonably by the Inquiry Officer to hold the charges as not proved. It is observed that the evidence from the side of Disciplinary Authority in support of the charges have been produced in the inquiry sufficiently but the Inquiry Officer has erred in his judgment to give his findings by highlighting such minor omissions which do not affect the other corroborative evidence in support of the charge. Hence in disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer I hold the charges under Article-IV as proved.
Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 deals with regard to the action to be taken by the DA on the inquiry report, which reads as under:
"15. Action on the inquiry report 15 O.A.No. 260/00157 of 2022 (1) The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14, as far as may be.
(2) The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority, a copy of the report of the inquiring authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of inquiring authority on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government servant." (Emphasis supplied)
5. From the rules quoted above, it is well established that where the inquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receipt of the report of the inquiry, the DA may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former. In case of disagreement, the DA has to record his own findings/reasons for disagreement based on the evidence on record or else may remit the matter to the IO for further inquiry. This is well supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs Kunj Behari Mishra, [(1998) 7 SCC 84].
6. In the instant case, the IO held the allegations leveled in Article I & IV as not proved. The DA did not agree with the same and instead of 16 O.A.No. 260/00157 of 2022 remitting the matter for further inquiry, gave his disagreement note.
On examination of the finding of the IO and the disagreement note, produced above, it is established that the disagreement note drawn up without considering the finding of the IO in its proper perspective and holding that the "Inquiry Officer has held the charges under this Article as not proved accepting the contention of the charged official that nobody from the Electricity Department appeared as a witness to testify the authenticity of the information contained the document exhibited as Ext-S-211 and that nobody from M/S Keshab Filling Station, Boinda appeared in the inquiry to testify to support the charge that fuel purchase vouchers (Ext-S-174 to Ext-
S-190) were fake" and "If the purchase of fuel was genuine and the conveyance charges for fuel was actually incurred for genuine purpose the charged official was free to produce supporting evidence from his side as the scope was very much available for him to do so during the inquiry". This shows that the DA shifted the onus on the applicant although law provides otherwise. Further, it was observed that "the evidence from the side of Disciplinary Authority in support of the charges have been produced in the inquiry 17 O.A.No. 260/00157 of 2022 sufficiently but the Inquiry Officer has erred in his judgment to give his findings by highlighting such minor omissions which do not affect the other corroborative evidence in support of the charge. Hence in disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer I hold the charges under Article-IV as proved" without stating as to how those documents are relevant and support the case of the department. Thus, it is clearly established that the disagreement note given by the DA was without recording reasons and, thus, presumed to have been passed without due application of mind by assigning his reasons. Similar is the situation, we find that insofar as Article I is concerned because it was the specific case of the applicant that it was not his duty to inter the payment to Ledger and onward transmission, which was accepted by the IO but no whisper has been made in the note of disagreement of the DA. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental inquiry proceedings.
However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent 18 O.A.No. 260/00157 of 2022 employee. Mere conjecture and surmises cannot sustain the findings of guilt even in the departmental inquiry proceedings. Thus, on examination of the allegation in the Article I & IV, report of the IO and the note of disagreement, it is conclusively established that the order passed by the DA and AA are without application of mind.
7. Further, this Tribunal cannot close its eyes to the very point that the punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
Therefore, even if it is taken that the allegations made in Article I & IV are taken to have been proved, but the offence is such imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement shocks to the judicial conscience. The above aspect of the matter is completely silent in the order of the DA and the AA also failed to take note of the position of rule/law stated above.
8. In view of the discussions made above, the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 04.02.2021 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 07.03.2022 are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the DA to proceed from the stage of receipt of the report of the IO afresh. The entire drill shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is 19 O.A.No. 260/00157 of 2022 made clear that the status of the applicant shall remain as of today till a decision is taken by the authorities concerned as directed above.
9. In the result, the OA stands allowed to the extent stated above.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) RK/PS