The jurisdiction of the High Court on the proportionality of the order of departmental authority is limited, and courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 33303/2013, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellants herein-Union of India and others and has confirmed the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in Original Application (OA) No. 357 of 2012 by which the Tribunal allowed the said OA and modified the punishment from dismissal/removal from service to compulsory retirement, the Union of India and others have preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:

That the respondent herein was serving as a Postal Assistant. While he was working as SPM Veppur SO during the period from 2004 to 2007, he committed fraud by way of fraudulent withdrawal in 85 RD accounts and by way of non-credit of deposits in 71 RD accounts and defrauded a sum of Rs. 16,59,065/-. The fraud came to light when enquiries were made based on the report of Postmaster, Srirangam vide letter dated 11.06.2007 about double payment of RD closure in respect of some RD accounts which revealed that the accounts were fraudulently closed by the respondent herein for the second time by way of forging the signatures of the depositors and a sum of Rs. 52,395/- had been withdrawn from the said accounts by the respondent fraudulently. Further investigation brought to light the frauds committed by the respondent herein. Thereafter having come to know that the fraud has been detected, the respondent herein deposited a total sum of Rs. 18,09,041/- (the amount of fraud Rs. 16,66,439/- + penal interest of Rs. 1,42,602/-).

2.1 A departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent vide office memorandum dated 26.07.2010. Six charges were framed against the respondent. The respondent admitted the fraud in his defence representation. An Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer held all the charges proved against the respondent-delinquent, as the delinquent officer himself admitted all the charges in the preliminary sitting itself. The Inquiry Officer’s report was forwarded to the charged official. The charged official submitted his representation on the Inquiry Officer’s report. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of ‘removal’ from service vide memo dated 19.01.2011, having found that the offence committed by the charged official-respondent herein was grave in nature and retention of such person in the department would further hamper the services rendered to the public. The departmental appeal against the order of removal from service came to be dismissed.

2.2 The respondent-charged official challenged the order of ‘removal’ before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 26.03.2012, the Tribunal partly allowed the said original application and modified the order of punishment from ‘removal’ from service to that of compulsory retirement on sympathetic ground by observing that as such the delinquent officer himself deposited the entire amount involved and therefore no loss has been caused to the department. The Tribunal also noted that the delinquent officer had completed nearly 39 years of service and has not suffered any other punishment other than the present one. By observing so, the Tribunal interfered with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and modified the same to that of compulsory retirement.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal modifying the order of punishment from removal to that of compulsory retirement, the department preferred a writ petition before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition. Hence, the department has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

3. Shri Balbir Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of