Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1026 (MP)

Gopal Singh Sisodia v. Union of India

2011-08-30

K.K.LAHOTI, T.K.KAUSHAL

body2011
ORDER 1. This petition is directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit at Indore, in O.A.No. 803/ 03 dated 7.3.2005 by which the application preferred by the petitioner, assailing the order of compulsory retirement in departmental proceedings, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted:- (a) That the commission agent Smt. Vidhya Verma herself in her statement Annexure P/10 admitted the fact that she purchased Kishan Vikas Patras and got commission, then there was no question of any misconduct on the part of the petitioner. (b) That so far as forms on which Kishan Vikash Patras were issued, were used for direct purchase but forms were usually used by the agent because forms prescribed for the agent were not available. It is submitted that the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings and by the Central Administrative Tribunal in respect of misconduct of the petitioner may be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order, and submitted that just to give undue enrichment to the agent, entries in the record were tampered by the petitioner subsequently by which benefit of Rs. 500/- was given to the agent. There is a finding of fact that the petitioner subsequently got changed the transaction in the name of agent while initially Kishan Vikash Patras were sold directly from the Post Office without intervention of the agent. It is submitted that a lenient view has already been taken by the authorities by imposing penalty of compulsory retirement and this petition has no merit and may be dismissed. 4. To appreciate the aforesaid contentions, we perused the record, orders by the authorities and by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 5. Facts of the case are that a charge-sheet Annexure P/1 was issued to the petitioner. The charges against the petitioner were as under:- 6. That petitioner who was working as Sub-Post Master, Dhar Collectorate between 9.12.1998 to and 26.3.1999 sold Kishan Vikash Patras of Rs. 50,000/- on 9.12.1998 to Shri Anwar Khan. Aforesaid Kisan Vikash Patras were sold on Form No. NC-69 on which signatures of the purchaser were appearing as on dated 9.12.1998. Subsequently, petitioner got affixed the seal of Smt. Vidhya Verma, Small Scale Savings Agent and shown the sale through agent and by manipulating the documents with malafide intention made payment of Rs. 500/- to the agent. 7. Aforesaid Kisan Vikash Patras were sold on Form No. NC-69 on which signatures of the purchaser were appearing as on dated 9.12.1998. Subsequently, petitioner got affixed the seal of Smt. Vidhya Verma, Small Scale Savings Agent and shown the sale through agent and by manipulating the documents with malafide intention made payment of Rs. 500/- to the agent. 7. A departmental enquiry was conducted in which findings were recorded against the petitioner. In the enquiry, Anwar Khan appeared as witness who deposed that aforesaid Kishan Vikas Patras were purchased by him without any intervention of the commission agent. The Enquiry Officer found that Kishan Vikas Patras were sold without intervention of the agent. The documents were subsequently tampered with and commission was wrongly paid to the small scale savings agent Smt. Vidhya Verma. After recording aforesaid findings, an enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. 8. Against this order an appeal was preferred to the Post Master General, Inodre Region, Indore which was dismissed vide Annexure P/6 dated 2.1.2003. Thereafter, a mercy petition was filed before the Chief Post Master General, M.P., Circle, Bhopal which was also dismissed vide order Annexure PI7 dated 21.8.2003. Petitioner aggrieved by these orders filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit at Indore registered as O.A.No. 803/03 and vide order Annexure P/8 dated 7.3.2005, it was dismissed. 9. From the perusal of the record, we find that in the departmental proceedings, a finding was recorded that the Kishan Vikas Patras were sold directly to Anwar Khan and at the time of selling, there was no intervention of the commission agent. The authorities have also recorded a finding that subsequently name and seal of commission agent was affixed just to give her commission for the sale of aforesaid Kishan Vikas Patras. Aforesaid findings have been recorded by the authorities after due appreciation of the evidence. Departmental enquiry is an enquiry to ascertain the facts. It is no a criminal case in which evidence is to be appreciated on footing of beyond doubt. The finding fact enquiry reveals that charges against the petitioner were proved. The authorities have considered the case of the petitioner and taking a lenient view, the petitioner was compulsorily retired. Departmental enquiry is an enquiry to ascertain the facts. It is no a criminal case in which evidence is to be appreciated on footing of beyond doubt. The finding fact enquiry reveals that charges against the petitioner were proved. The authorities have considered the case of the petitioner and taking a lenient view, the petitioner was compulsorily retired. The Central Administrative Tribunal considered the case by order Annexure P/8 and after appreciating the contentions of the petitioner, the original application was dismissed. In the aforesaid orders or in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, there appears to be no infirmity or illegality warranting our interference. 10. This petition is found without merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. C.B. Patne for petitioner; Abhishek Tugnawat for respondents.