IMPORTANT POINT
Extreme penalties in disciplinary actions must be proportionate to the misconduct and consider the employee's service history.

ORDER :

Nyapathy Vijay, J.

1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the Orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.1701 of 2003 dated 27.10.2006 in modifying the penalty imposed on the respondent.

2. The parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal:-

3. The facts leading to the present Writ Petition is as follows:-

The applicant was initially appointed as ED. BPM, Kothakottam B.O attached with Tuni S.O from 09.09.1977 and had rendered 22 years of satisfactory service upto 15.11.1999 i.e. date of removal from service. The applicant was issued a Charge Memorandum on 24.04.1977 under Rule 8 of EDA (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964 and enquiry was conducted on the charges framed. In the charge memorandum, three Articles of Charge were framed and they read as under:-

“a) Article-I:

That the said Shri N.V.V.S. Prasad while functioning as ED BPM, Kotha Kottam BO, a/w Kotananduru SO during the period from 09.09.1996 to 30.09.1996 failed to account for in the BO accounts the amounts of Rs.350/- on 09.09.1996 accepted from Shri M.Satyanarayana, for depositing in the (7) RD accounts 286965, 286821, 286420, 286550, 286428, 286837, 286635 @ Rs.50/- each towards monthly instalments for the month of September 1996 on the dates of acceptance as required in Rule 144 read with Rule 143 (3) and 131 and 174 of Book of BO Rules (VI Edition – 1982) and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required in Rule 17 of P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964.

b) Article-II:

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office the said Shri N.V.V.S. Prasad failed to account for on the same day a depoisit of Rs.1,050/- in SB Account No.1825289 accepted from Shri M.S.N. Rao on 08.06.1996 and Rs.550/- in SB Account No.1826549 from Shri L. Bhadram on 20.06.1996 and thus failed to follow the provisions of Rule 131 and 174 of Book of BO Rules (VI Edition – 1982) and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required in Rule 17 of P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964.

c) Article-III:

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri N.V.V.S. Prasad detained 20 unregistered letters without effecting delivery which were received in the BO on 03.09.1996, 04.09.1996, 05.09.1996, 08.09.1996 and 09.09.1996 and thus contravened the provisions Rule 66 of Book of BO Rules (VI Edition – 1982) and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty as required in Rule 17 of P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964.”

4. The Inquiry Officer after conducting enquiry submitted his report holding that Charges I & II as proved and Charge III as not proved. Taking into consideration the explanation of the applicant and the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of removal from service on 15.11.1999. The appeal and revision filed thereon were also dismissed vide orders dated 20.02.2001 and 23.10.2002 respectively. Hence, O.A was filed before the Tribunal to set-aside the punishments imposed.

5. The O.A was filed raising elaborate and detailed grounds by the applicant to establish his innocence of the Charge framed against him. The applicant also raised grounds pointing out the errors committed in the impugned proceedings. The respondent/Union of India filed its counter opposing the plea of the applicant by contending that the enquiry and the consequential punishment were perfectly in consonance with the procedure and no error warranting interference was pointed out. All the grounds urged by the applicant and the respondent-Union of India are not referred considering the scope of writ petition, which would be explained in the subsequent paragraphs.

6. The Tribunal after considering the respective contentions was of the opinion that the Charge against the applicant was proved, but was of the opinion that the punishment of removal imposed on the applicant is harsh and dispropor