Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2565 (ALL)

UNION OF INDIA v. S. D. TIWARI

2017-11-07

IRSHAD ALI, PANKAJ MITHAL

body2017
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Raghuraj Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.K. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioners have preferred this petition against the order dated 6th February 2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’. The Tribunal by the said order has set aside the order of punishment dated 5.3.2009 passed against the respondent No. 1 whereby he has been punished with the stoppage of one increment for the period of one year without cumulative effect on the basis of the disciplinary proceedings conducted against him. 3. The respondent No. 1 was working as a Postal Assistant and was posted at Mauranipur in Jhansi. He was elected as the Divisional Secretary of Jhansi Division of Employees Union of Class III and he was also holding the post of Divisional Secretary of National Postal Employees Union Class III. In his capacity, as the office bearer of the Union, he submitted letters of authorization of 14 employees to the Senior Postmaster, Jhansi bearing forged signatures of the employees. Accordingly, a disciplinary action was taken against him and an enquiry was instituted. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 5.2.2009 holding the respondent No. 1 guilty of producing forged letters of authorization before the Senior Postmaster. On the basis of the said enquiry report, after due notice and opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 1, the impugned order of punishment was passed against him. The said order was affirmed in departmental appeal. 4. The respondent No. 1 filed original application before the Tribunal challenging the imposition of punishment upon him on the ground that the submission of forged letters of authorization was not in connection with his official duties and, therefore, the order is without jurisdiction. 5. The Tribunal by the impugned order held that the submission of forged letters of authorization does not relate to an act of commission or omission emanating from his official duty and, therefore, in view of the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 23.5.2002 passed C.W.P. No. 9185 of 2000, the respondent No. 1 cannot be punished for such an action. 6. 6. In challenging the above order of the Tribunal, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rule 1964 clearly provide that a public servant shall all times maintain absolute integrity and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government Servant. The act of the respondent No. 1 in producing forged letters of authorization is unbecoming of a public servant for which necessary disciplinary action can be taken so as to punish him. 7. The order of the Tribunal as well as the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as referred to above does not refer to Rule 3 of the Rules and does not deal with the same. 8. A plain and simple reading of Rule 3 of the Rules provides that every Government Servant has to maintain absolute integrity and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government Servant at all times. The use of the words ‘at all times’ are crucial and important. They connote that there cannot be two standards for a Government Servant, i.e., one in discharge of official duties and other while not on duty. 9. It would not be proper to induce additional words in the aforesaid Rule such as ‘during the duty’ or ‘after duty’. The Rule using the expression ‘at all times’ has to be interpreted in the language, it has been coughed and not by adding additional words to it. Therefore, in our opinion, the use of the words ‘at all times’ in Rule 3 of the Rules makes it sufficiently clear that a Government Servant has to maintain absolute integrity and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government Servant while on duty or otherwise. 10. It is well accepted that neglect by a Government Servant of his wife and his family is a conduct, which is unbecoming of a Government Servant and that is a good and sufficient reason to justify action against him. 11. 10. It is well accepted that neglect by a Government Servant of his wife and his family is a conduct, which is unbecoming of a Government Servant and that is a good and sufficient reason to justify action against him. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has erred in law in setting aside the order of punishment passed against the respondent No. 1 solely on the ground that the submission of letters of authorization with forged signatures before the Senior Postmaster by the respondent No. 1 does not attract disciplinary proceedings to warrant imposition of punishment as the same was not done in capacity of a public servant or in discharge of his official duties. 12. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 6th February 2015 is quashed. 13. The present petition is allowed.