Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 275 (ORI)

Bijay Kumar Singh v. Union of India

2011-05-06

L.MOHAPATRA, S.K.MISHRA

body2011
JUDGMENT S. K. MISHRA, J 1. The Petitioner in this writ application calls in question the Order Dated 13.08.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.126 of 2006 rejecting the application filed by him. In the Original Application the Petitioner had challenged the orders of the Disciplinary Authority & the Appellate Authority dismissing him from service. In this writ application, he challenges the findings recorded by the Enquiring Officer, the decision of the Disciplinary Authority, the order of the Appellate Authority & the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. 2. The applicant was working as GDSBPM in Kandajuri Branch Post Office in account with Loisingha Sub Post Office. On the allegation that he has misconducted himself, disciplinary proceedings under Rule 10 of G.D.S. (Conduct & Employment) Rules, 2001 was initiated against him. After completion of the proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of removal from service on 27.12.2004. He challenged the same in appeal before the Appellate Authority. His appeal was also rejected on 05.08.2005. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed Original Application before the Tribunal, which as per the Order Dated 13.08.2009 dismissed his application. It is apparent from the records that the applicant while working as GDSBPM of Kandajuri Branch Post Office in account with Loisingha Sub Post Office during the period from 01.09.1976 to 04.07.2002 received Kundukela SDMO No. 4086 dated 01.03.2002 for Rs.2000 payable to Sri Manchita Rana of village Pandarani, P.O. Kandajuri Via. Loisingha on 08.03.2002 at Kandajuri Branch Post Office for effecting payment. The applicant paid the aforesaid money order to a person other than the real payee on 21.03.2002 falsifying LTI in the Money Order paid voucher. Besides that the Petitioner while working as such accepted Rs.20 & Rs.200 from one Ram Narayan Brahma on 03.04.2002 for making deposit in R.D. Account No.1100773 & 1100699 of Kandujuri Branch in the name of Sri Haladhara Brahma & Sri Ram Narayan Brahma respectively. It is alleged that the Petitioner did not credit the accepted money into the post office account as required under rules & regulations. It is further alleged that the Petitioner accepted Rs.4,500 on 03.11.2001 from the depositor Sri Jasobanta Dash for making deposit in Kandajuri SB. Account No.57900 standing open at Kandajuri B.O. but did not credit the said amount into the post office account as required under Rules. It is further alleged that the Petitioner accepted Rs.4,500 on 03.11.2001 from the depositor Sri Jasobanta Dash for making deposit in Kandajuri SB. Account No.57900 standing open at Kandajuri B.O. but did not credit the said amount into the post office account as required under Rules. It was alleged that the Petitioner has committed grave offence intentionally & deliberately in gross violation of the rules & regulations of the Post Office. Accordingly, charges under three heads were framed against the Petitioner. 3. The Enquiring Officer conducted the enquiry by affording sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner to participate in the enquiry. The Enquiring Officer after conducting the enquiry submitted his report indicating that Charge Nos. III & IV were fully established whereas Charge No. I was not proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority after complying with the rules passed the order of punishment of removal of the Petitioner from service. The Appellate Authority, on receipt of the appeal of the Petitioner, examined the case & found no irregularity or illegality in the manner of conducting enquiry or in the manner of affording the opportunity to the Petitioner & rejected the appeal. Thereafter, the Petitioner's application before the Tribunal was also rejected on the ground that the Courts cannot sit in appeal against the findings recorded by the Enquiring Officer/ Disciplinary Authority. 4. In assailing the orders passed by the Tribunal, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Enquiring Officer's report holding Articles II & III as proved is based on no evidence & the depositor has categorically stated that he has not tendered money to the applicant in respect of Charge No.II & in respect of Charge No.III, the depositor has also stated that he has taken back the money immediately. Alternatively it is argued that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority is shockingly disproportionate to the charges leveled against him &, therefore, the same should be set aside & the matter should be again decided by the Disciplinary Authority. The Learned Asst. Alternatively it is argued that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority is shockingly disproportionate to the charges leveled against him &, therefore, the same should be set aside & the matter should be again decided by the Disciplinary Authority. The Learned Asst. Solicitor General, on the other hand, submitted that the Courts in exercise of the writ jurisdiction should not sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Enquiring Officer/Disciplinary Authority & it is the duty of the Appellate Authority to do the same Secondly, it is contended that the employees of a Bank enjoy the trust of the depositors & in a case where such trust is breached then the highest punishment should be imposed. Therefore, he contended that the appeal be dismissed. 5. Having perused the Appellate order it is seen that the Appellate Authority has carefully examined the records & has given his findings on the Articles of Charges. Regarding Charge No II, the Appellate Authority has found that the Enquiring Officer has based his findings on the documentary evidence though the oral deposition of the depositor & other witnesses does not support the Department. It is further found that the Charge Officer has taken the plea that he has not received money from the depositors, even though entries were made in the pass book & were sealed & initialed. This being the case, the Appellate Authority has found that it was the responsibility of the Charge Officer to credit the amount to the Government account. Whether, he received the money from the depositors or not as he has given proof of deposit of the creditors & credit a liability for the Government. After the same, if the Charge Officer failed to deposit the money to the Government account, he has failed to his devotion to duty & failed to maintain sincerity, honesty & integrity. This finding speaks for itself & it can be safely inferred that in view of the documentary evidence regarding deposit of money by the depositors & granting of receipts of the post offices indicating such deposits definitely indicate that the Petitioner has received the money from the depositor though the depositor may have been own over & they do not support the case of the Department. A Departmental Proceeding is not akin to a criminal trial. A Departmental Proceeding is not akin to a criminal trial. Unlike the prosecution in a criminal trial, the Department is not required to prove the charge by clear & convincing evidence, so as to establish the guilt of the charge officer beyond all reasonable doubts. In an domestic enquiry on reasonable proof of the charges leveled, the Enquiring Officer can accept the evidence available & can come to a finding of the fact on the basis of preponderance of probability. Judging in this light, the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority suffer from no illegality as regards charge under Article No. II is concerned. Moreover, the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are not applicable to a departmental proceeding. 6. As far as Article No.III is concerned, the Petitioner had made necessary entries in the SB Account standing in the name of Jasobanta Das on 03.11.2001. Then the plea taken by the Petitioner is that he returned the money to the depositors. The authorities found that once the delinquent has made entry in the Pass Book, in proof of deposit of the money into the Post Office Savings Bank Account raising the liability of the Government, he is to enter the amount into the Government Account. In this case, the Appellant has failed to credit the amount into the Government account along with necessary entries in the Post Office. If at all the depositor took back the money from the Petitioner, her should have shown it as a withdrawal in the book of account, the fact that no such withdrawal has been reflected in the accounts, the reasonable inference is the Petitioner has defaulted the amount. Therefore, it was held that the Petitioner was guilty of misconduct on Article No.III also. 7. It is trite law that the Courts can interfere in the findings recorded by the Enquiring Officer or the Appellate Authority & also can interfere with the punishment imposed if the decision of the authorities is illegal or it violates the principles of natural justice. However, on factual findings the Courts can only do so when there is absolutely no evidence of the charges alleged. The Courts cannot re-appreciate the evidence & substitute its finding with that of the findings of the Enquiring Officer/Appellate Authority. However, on factual findings the Courts can only do so when there is absolutely no evidence of the charges alleged. The Courts cannot re-appreciate the evidence & substitute its finding with that of the findings of the Enquiring Officer/Appellate Authority. From the discussions made in the preceding paragraphs, we come to the conclusion that this is not a case of absolute lack of evidence. However, we find no justification in interfering with the factual findings of the Enquiring Officer/Appellate Authority. 8. While judging whether a punishment is disproportionate to the charges alleged, the Court has to keep in view the various factors like the nature of the job, the standard of honesty & integrity required of the employee & various other aspects. The Supreme Court in State Bank of India & another v. Bela Bagchi & ors. (2005) 7 SCC 435 has observed that a Bank Officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty & integrity. He deals with money of the depositors & the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank & to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion & diligence & to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank Officer. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers & officers acting & operating within their allotted spheres. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline & is misconduct. Therefore, so observing the Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by the High Court wherein the punishment was set aside on the ground of it being disproportionate to the charges established. In this case, the Petitioner is not an employee of the Bank but he is an employee of a Post Office. It is well known that the post offices act as banker to the people residing in rural areas when there is no other alternative. The employees of the bank are entrusted with the small savings of the people residing in rural areas & therefore, an employee of post office is required to exercise highest standard of honesty & integrity. The post office deposit schemes are in fact an alternative to the Banking system, which is available in almost all urban areas. The employees of the bank are entrusted with the small savings of the people residing in rural areas & therefore, an employee of post office is required to exercise highest standard of honesty & integrity. The post office deposit schemes are in fact an alternative to the Banking system, which is available in almost all urban areas. The very discipline of the post offices is dependent on the personnel who discharge the duties & on whom the people have trust. Such being the case; we are of the opinion that charges being very serious in nature, the punishment awarded is not shockingly disproportionate & hence, there is little scope of interference with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The writ application is without any merit. The same is dismissed. No costs.