Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2236 (PNJ)

Union Of India v. R. C. Meena

2010-08-04

A.N.JINDAL, M.M.KUMAR

body2010
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The Union of India has challenged order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity the Tribunal) while disposing of OA No. 549/HR/2008. The Tribunal had noticed that in the earlier round of litigation the applicant- respondent Shri R.C.Meena had filed OA No.226/HR/2005. In the aforesaid application the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that there was no connivance on the part of Shri R.C.Meena in the shortage of cash and the amount has already been deposited by the defaulter in the Post Office. The Tribunal had pointed out irregularities in holding of departmental enquiry against the applicant respondent Sh. R.C.Meena as the documents were not exhibited and accordingly the applicant- respondent was not in a position to cross examine some of the witnesses. The applicant- respondent was not found responsible for shortage of cash or having connived with the officer and did not played any suspicious role. The only lapse on his part was that he had failed to detect the shortcoming in the course of his official duty while on inspection. For the aforesaid fault, the applicant- respondent was inflicted with the penalty of reduction of his pay by three stages from Rs. 6500/- to Rs. 6025/- for a period of three years with cumulative effect with a further direction that the applicant- respondent was not to earn increments during the period of reduction. It is appropriate to mention that applicant respondent Shri R.C.Meena has been working as Inspector in the Department of Posts and a charge sheet was issued to him alleging that while functioning as Inspector he failed to verify the balance of Hassanpur Sub Post Office in various registers where Sub Post Master has shown bogus payment of Rs. 1,30,000/- in respect of Kisan Vikas Patra. Accordingly the applicant- respondent was found guilty of non devotion to duty and he acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a government servant. The enquiry officer infact has exonerated him. However, on disagreement note dated 12.8.2002, the disciplinary authority, Director Postal Service, Ambala decided to disagree and imposed punishment of reduction of applicant- respondents pay by three stages from Rs. 6500/- to Rs. 6025/- for a period of three years with cumulative effect with a further direction that the applicant- respondent was not to earn increments during the period of reduction. The order was affirmed in appeal. 6500/- to Rs. 6025/- for a period of three years with cumulative effect with a further direction that the applicant- respondent was not to earn increments during the period of reduction. The order was affirmed in appeal. Feeling aggrieved the applicant- respondent filed OA No.226 HR of 2005 in which directions were issued and the operative part of the order reads thus: "The applicant has pointed out that there was no connivance on his part in shortage of cash and the amount has already been deposited by the defaulter SPM. Certain documents were not exhibited and the applicant was not in a position to cross examine some of the witnesses. We also find that in the inquiry, it is also not established that the applicant was responsible for shortage of cash or had connived with the SPM or played any suspicious role. The only lapse on his part was that he had failed to detect the alleged shortcoming in the course of his official duty, while on inspection. Considering the lapse on his part, the penalty imposed on his appears to be too harsh and pricks the conscience of the. Court. We are aware that it is within the domain of the competent disciplinary/ appellate/revisional authority to award punishment, but at the same time, the court has the power to interfere with or modify the penalty imposed in appropriate cases. Present is such a case, where the penalty imposed on the applicant needs to be reviewed and lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice. In view of the above discussion, this court directs respondent no. 2 to consider the case of the applicant with reference to different pleas taken by him as stated above and to pass a fresh order within a period of 3 months from the receipt of a copy of this order. With these observations, the OA is disposed of. No order as to costs." 2. Despite the aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal the appellant again passed an order affirming the same order on 23.7.2008. Again order has been challenged in OA No.549 HR of 2008. With these observations, the OA is disposed of. No order as to costs." 2. Despite the aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal the appellant again passed an order affirming the same order on 23.7.2008. Again order has been challenged in OA No.549 HR of 2008. The Tribunal again set aside the order by holding that directions issued while disposina of OA No.226 HR of 2005 have not been complied with and in the new order passed, the authorities although have reconsidered the earlier order but still it has failed to comply with the directions issued earlier. Despite the specific directions asking the petitioner- authority to inflict some lessor punishment, same punishment has been imposed. Accordingly, the subsequent order dated 23.7.2008 has again been set aside and feeling aggrieved the Union of India has filed the instant appeal. 3. It is well settled that in cases where there is irregularity and illegality in the holding of departmental enquiry interference by the Tribunal and the Courts in the quantum punishment is permissible. It is well known that Wednesburys principle would be attracted when the Tribunal or the Courts while exercising judicial review come across flagrnt violation of principles of natural justice to conclude that decision is unreasonable on the ground : (a) that it is based on wholly irrelevant material or wholly irrelevant considerations; (b) It has ignored the relevant material which it should have taken into consideration; and c)It is so absurd that no sensible person could ever have reached such a conclusion. 4. The aforesaid view has been taken by a Constitution Bench of Honble the Supreme Court in para 242 of the judgement rendered in the case of Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. UOI 1 (2006) 2 SCC 1. Therefore, once the Tribunal has pointed out various irregularities in the enquiry, the interference on the question of punishment was wholly justified and the appellant could not have ignored the earlier order especially when that order has attained finality. It could not have simply reiterated the earlier order and have maintained the same punishment awarded earlier. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and we are not inclined to admit the same. 5. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.