Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 329 (GAU)

Indra Doley v. Union of India

2017-03-16

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. 1. Facts to be noticed, the petitioner served as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master, Meshaki Tongani Mirigaon Branch Office in account with Sissiborgaon S.O. On 05.03.2010 a verification exercise was carried out by competent authority as regards the cash and stamp balance of the Branch Office and a sum of Rs. 1,53,904.00 was found short by the Inspecting Official. Under the relevant rules it was the duty of the Branch Post Master to maintain the Account Book of the Branch Office daily. On the date of the inspection it was found that cash balance was not maintained vis-a-vis the Account Book of the Branch Office. On 06.03.2010 the petitioner was placed under put off duty and was eventually charge- sheeted on 08.07.2010. The Articles of Charge and the Statement of imputation of misconduct in support of the Article of charge framed against the petitioner was with regard to the period from 07.04.1997 to 05.03.2010, during which time he committed shortage of cash of Rs. 1,53,904.00 and the shortage of cash was charged as UCP in the Branch Office Account on 05.03.2010. For violating the provisions of Rule 133 of the Rules for Branch Offices, it was alleged that by the said action the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, which was contrary to Rule 21 of the Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter called ‘the Rules, 2001’). Disciplinary proceeding was initiated by appointing an Enquiry Officer as required under Rule 10 of the Rules, 2001. During the course of the proceedings, the petitioner admitted to the charge of having committed shortage of cash. The same was recorded in the Daily Order Sheet No. 1 dated 20.12.2010. The petitioner also made good the government loss of Rs. 1,53,904.00 on the very date of the issuance of the Charge Memo dated 08.07.2010 at the cost of his ancestral property. Enquiry Report was submitted before the Disciplinary Authority on 28.02.2011, with copy to the petitioner. In the representation submitted on 18.04.2011, the petitioner admitted the charge framed against him. 2. On 10.05.2011 the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect. Appeal preferred was also rejected by the Appellate Authority by Order dated 16.11.2011. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 56 of 2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. In the representation submitted on 18.04.2011, the petitioner admitted the charge framed against him. 2. On 10.05.2011 the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect. Appeal preferred was also rejected by the Appellate Authority by Order dated 16.11.2011. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 56 of 2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. 3. The said O.A. was dismissed vide Order dated 30.01.2013. The Tribunal after considering the entire facts of the case found that the petitioner in his own handwriting admitted to his guilt of having committed shortage of cash amounting to Rs. 1,53,904.00, which he credited to the government exchequer. As regards the allegation of the petitioner that he was made to admit guilt under duress and coercion, the Tribunal found that there was no material/evidence placed in support thereof. Further, the Tribunal held that in the absence of any illegality or procedural irregularity and/or any material to show that the penalty was shockingly disproportionate, concluded that the action of the State Respondent was not arbitrary. 4. Before this Court the petitioner has advanced similar argument as made before the Tribunal. It is submitted that the petitioner could not have been imposed with the severe punishment as there was no misappropriation of money, rather only a shortage of a certain cash amount in the Account Book maintained at the Branch Office. It is also submitted that having regard to the charge levelled against the petitioner, the punishment of dismissal from service was excessive and disproportionate. 5. The records available clearly show that due enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid Rules, 2001. The petitioner had participated and had also filed written statement where he admitted to the charge levelled. In fact, he had also made good the government loss of Rs. 1,53,904.00 on 08.07.2010. Admission so made and return of the short-fall found in the Account Book maintained at the Branch Office itself goes to demonstrate the guilt on his part. The petitioner served as a Gramin Dak Sevak and as a responsible Branch Post Master he was required to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, devotion and diligence and do nothing unbecoming of a responsible officer. He was required to ensure compliance of the rules and regulations in maintaining accounts and take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Institution he served. He was required to ensure compliance of the rules and regulations in maintaining accounts and take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Institution he served. By his failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion, the Institution lost confidence on him. In such a situation there was no ground for the State Respondents to take a lenient view for the proved misconduct of the petitioner. At the same time, it would also be futile to embark upon and interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority. It would be improper to direct the State Respondents to take back the petitioner in whom the employer had lost confidence. 6. To reiterate, the petitioner had not only admitted to his guilt but had also returned the money which was found short in the Account Book maintained at the Branch Office. In this context, the Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Nath Bhalla v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2007) 15 SCC 775 dealt with a situation where the appellant therein had paid back the misappropriated money. It was held that mere repayment of money does not absolve a person of the serious charge of misappropriation. The said case in Narendra Nath Bhalla (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. 7. As regards the argument advanced on the excessive nature of the penalty, having regard to the charge levelled against the petitioner, we hold that the punishment so imposed is appropriate and no leniency can be shown. The penalty so imposed is not as high and/or disproportionate so as to shock the conscience of this Court. 8. For all the discussions and findings above, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same stands dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.