Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1244 (AP)

Inspector Posts v. S. Seshagirirao

2024-08-30

NYAPATHY VIJAY, RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2024
ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners. 2. No representation for the respondent. 3. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioners-The Inspector of Posts and others, challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred as ‘Tribunal’), dated 03.06.2011 in O.A.No.948 of 2009 which was filed by the applicant, the present respondent. 4. The Tribunal allowed the O.A.No.948 of 2009, and modified the punishment of termination, into punishment of debarring the respondent from appearing for any recruitment for any post for a period of three years from the date of the order of the Tribunal, also providing that the respondent shall not be entitled for any emoluments for the period he was out of work on account of the disciplinary proceedings, including the period of suspension. 5. The respondent herein, while working as GDSMD/PKR, Pedagummuluru Sub-Post Office, the Inspector (Posts), Yellamanchili Sub-Division, Yellamanchili was placed under off duty with effect from 19.11.2005 A/N, for misappropriation of Money Order bearing No.4347, dated 08.11.2005 for Rs.500/- booked at C.I.C. Bala Nagar, Hyderabad, payable to one K.Sashikala, C/o Late Sriramulu, Pedagummuluru. He was proceeded under Rule 10 of GDS Conduct & employment Rules 2001 (in short ‘Rules’), vide Memo No.F- 1/Pedagummuluru/06-07, dated 06.10.2006. 6. He was proceeded under Rule 10 of GDS Conduct & employment Rules 2001 (in short ‘Rules’), vide Memo No.F- 1/Pedagummuluru/06-07, dated 06.10.2006. 6. The Charge/Article-I reads as under :- “That the said Sri S.Seshagirirao, GDSMD/PKR while working as GDSMD/PKR Pedagummuluru SO on 14.11.2005 failed to enter the C.I.E., Balanagar MO.No.4347, dated 08.11.2005 for Rs.500/- which was entrusted to him for payment in the postman book and pay the value of CIE Balanagar MO.No.4347, dated 08.11.2005 for Rs.500 payable to K.Sesikala c/w late K.SriramuluPedagummuluru which was entrusted to him for payment to the payee on 14.11.2005, but passed on the paid voucher of said money order to the Sub-Postmaster Pedagummuluru SO as genuine voucher by showing the money order as paid to the payee on 14.11.2005 and thus acted in a manner contrary to the provisions of Rules 10(1) of Rules for Branch Offices Sixth Edition and Rule 110 of Chapter III and Rule 127 (1) of Volume VI Part (III) (sixth edition) read with note II in the introductory part of chapter III to Vol VI Part III (Sixth Edition) and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required vide Rule 21 of GDS (C & E) Rules 2001”. 7. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Presenting Officer was also appointed on 08.11.2006. A detailed enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer recorded that the charge was proved. The Disciplinary Authority i.e., the Inspector (Posts), Yellamanchili Sub Division, Anakapalli Division, after considering the Enquiry Officer’s report and the representation of the respondent, passed the order of punishment, removing him from service, vide Memo No.F1/Pedagummuluru/06-07, dated 31.08.2007. The respondent’s first appeal was rejected by the Appellate authority on 22.09.2007. His revision petition was also dismissed on 21.05.2009 by the Director of Postal Services, Visakhapatnam. Thereafter, the respondent filed O.A.No.948 of 2009, in which, the Tribunal, by order, dated 03.06.2011, modified the punishment. 8. The operative portion of the order of the Tribunal reads as under :- “Accordingly, the punishment of termination is modified and debarring the applicant from appearing for any recruitment for any post for a period of three years from today. The applicant shall not be entitled for any emoluments for the period he was out of work on account of these disciplinary proceedings, which will include the period of suspension also”. 9. The applicant shall not be entitled for any emoluments for the period he was out of work on account of these disciplinary proceedings, which will include the period of suspension also”. 9. Before the Tribunal, the contention of the present respondent was that, he was persuaded by the Presenting Officer to admit the guilt, and the promise was given by the Presenting Officer as well as the Enquiry Officer, that minor penalty would be imposed. Inspite of the same, a major penalty was imposed. He pleaded that in the enquiry, witnesses were not examined. In the absence of the examination of the witnesses, the finding could not be recorded of charges proved, against him. The petitioners herein, disputed and said that the respondent had pleaded guilty in writing. There was no need to record evidence. 10. The Tribunal found that the respondent pleaded guilty, which was evident from the documents on record, firstly in the response filed to the charge memo, and secondly, before the Enquiry Officer. It confirmed the finding of guilt. 11. However, on the point of punishment, considering that the misappropriation was of Rs.500/- and also that it was the plea that the respondent was persuaded to admit the guilt for the minor punishment, taking a sympathetic view, the Tribunal modified the punishment of removal, as aforesaid. 12. The respondent has not challenged the order of the Tribunal. 13. The petitioners-Inspector (Posts) and others have challenged the order of the Tribunal. 14. Learned Central Government counsel submitted that the Tribunal, after finding the respondent guilty, could not modify the punishment of termination, imposed by the disciplinary authority into the punishment of debarring him from appearing for any recruitment for any post for a period of three years. He submitted that as per the departmental rules the respondent was having only two years remaining- to appear for any recruitment for any post in the department. He further submitted that if the Tribunal considered the punishment imposed to be disproportionate to the charge proved, it ought to have remitted the matter to the disciplinary authorities to reconsider the punishment, but could not modify the punishment itself. 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 16. The respondent joined the services in the year 1983. 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 16. The respondent joined the services in the year 1983. Except the incident, for which the punishment of removal was imposed, nothing has been brought on record that there was any other misconduct or misappropriation of money, committed by the respondent in his long service of 24 years by that time. 17. In his reply to the charge memo, the respondent while admitting the guilt, assigned the reason for such misappropriation as under : “Sri S.Sivakumar my son fell ill and was on bed during November 2005 first week. Myself in the deep distress due to financial paucity and son’s severe illness. I tried my level best to get money by loan from neighbours and others but in vain. The M.O., referred to above was entrusted to me. The payee is well known to me and reached the house of payee to pay and get the same as loan. But she was not present. With a view to beg her later it was got signed by somebody available whom I could not identify now. The amount was used to treat my son was seriously ill at that time. So, I could not meet her immediately.” 18. We do not say that on the aforesaid ground the misappropriation was justified or that the finding of guilt or admission should not have been recorded, but once the charge was proved based on admission, contained in the response, the reason assigned in the same response should also have been taken into consideration for imposing lesser punishment, also considering the amount and later on its deposit by the respondent. Punishment of removal from service in our view was shockingly disproportionate. If the Tribunal taking a lenient/ sympathetic view has modified the punishment, we do not find it a case for interference in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with such an order of the Tribunal. 19. We are of the further view that the Tribunal/Court are within jurisdiction to modify the punishment, if it touches the conscious of the Court on the ground that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the proved charge. The Tribunal/Court has also got the power to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority to impose such other punishment. 19. We are of the further view that the Tribunal/Court are within jurisdiction to modify the punishment, if it touches the conscious of the Court on the ground that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the proved charge. The Tribunal/Court has also got the power to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority to impose such other punishment. But, that does not mean that the Tribunal/ Court cannot substitute or modify the punishment. 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C.Chaturvedi V. Union of India (UOI) and others, (1995) 6 SCC 749 , observed that “18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” 21. The punishment of removal from service was imposed on 31.08.2007, i.e., about 17 years ago from today, consequently, even if the other course to remit the matter to the Disciplinary Authority was open to the Tribunal, which was not adopted, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal after 17 years, to send the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the punishment other than removal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 22. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent had only two years to appear for any recruitment for any post in the department, but the Tribunal has passed the order of debarring him from appearing for any recruitment for any post for a period of three years, which could not be passed. 22. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent had only two years to appear for any recruitment for any post in the department, but the Tribunal has passed the order of debarring him from appearing for any recruitment for any post for a period of three years, which could not be passed. In the counter-affidavit, at Paragraph No.6, the respondent has inter alia submitted that “as per the recruitment rules, the respondent is eligible for consideration to the promotion to the Group-D post till he attains the age of 60 years, and therefore the age criteria of his maximum age of 53 years of which, the respondent has two more years to be considered for departmental posts is not sustainable.” 23. However, without entering into the question as to whether the respondent could appear for any recruitment for any post, under the Rules, for two years or for three years or till he attained the age of 60 years, we provide that let the Rules prevail in that respect, but on such ground, the order of the Tribunal calls for no interference. 24. In view of the above consideration, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 25. The petitioners to comply with the order of the Tribunal within one month. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.