Back
2020 Supreme(Cal) 511
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Dipankar Datta, Madhumati Mitra, J.
Union Of India & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Uday Chand Majumder & Anr. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Central Admin Tribunal) No. 112 of 2019, 113 of 2019
Decided On : 06-03-2020
Somnath Bose, Advocate, Rajsekhar Basu, Advocate, Ujjal Ray, Advocate, Arpa Chakraborty, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of holding an enquiry into the conduct of delinquent employees when charges are factual in nature and the material allegations are denied by the employees, emphasizing the requirement of natural justice.
Headnote:
Penalty - Disciplinary Proceedings - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - The court discussed the legality and correctness of orders quashing the penalties imposed on the respondents and directing recovery of money for the loss caused to the Government by them. The court considered the necessity of holding an enquiry into the conduct of delinquent employees when charges are factual in nature and the material allegations are denied by the employees. The court also emphasized the requirement of natural justice in such cases.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered two writ petitions challenging the legality of orders quashing penalties imposed on the respondents for negligence in discharge of their official duties, leading to misappropriation of Government money.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delinquent employees were denied proper and reasonable opportunity of defending themselves due to the absence of a formal enquiry initiated by the disciplinary authority, leading to severe prejudice. The court maintained the orders of the tribunal setting aside the penalties but allowed the writ petitioners to initiate regular departmental inquiry against the employees.
Issues: The key issues were whether an enquiry is essential before imposing minor penalty on a delinquent employee when charges are factual in nature and the material allegations are denied by the employees, and whether the writ petitioners should be granted the liberty to resume the proceedings from the stage of conducting enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when charges are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should be called for, as it is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and cannot be dispensed with. The court also emphasized that the burden of proving the truth of the allegations lies on the disciplinary authority.
Final Decision: The court maintained the orders of the tribunal setting aside the penalties but allowed the writ petitioners to initiate regular departmental inquiry against the employees, resuming the proceedings from the stage of appointment of enquiry officer(s).
JUDGMENT
Madhumati Mitra, J. - These two writ petitions have been preferred by the Union of India and its officials challenging the legality and correctness of similarly worded orders dated May 9, 2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Kolkata (hereinafter the Tribunal) in O.A. No.385 of 2017 and O.A. No.350 of 2016. By the orders impugned, the Tribunal allowed the original applications of the respondent no.1 in W.P.C.T.No.112 of 2019, Shri Uday Chand Majumdar, and the respondent no.1 in WPCT 113 of 2019, Shri Prasenjit Mukherjee, by quashing the orders of minor penalty imposed on them as well as the orders of the appellate authority affirming the same. The respondents in the original applications (hereinafter the writ petitioners) were directed by the Tribunal to refund the entire amounts recovered by them from the original applicants, preferably within one month from the date of receipt of copies of the said orders.
2. On 07.02.2020, this Bench had observed that identical issues being involved in both the writ petitions, the same would be taken up together for hearing and consideration.
3. Before dealing with the rival submissions of the parties, it would be appropriate to set out the facts of both the writ petitions briefly.
4. The applicant in O.A. No. 350/1016 of 2016, Shri Prasenjit Mukherjee (hereinafter Prasenjit) approached the Tribunal questioning the legality of an order of minor penalty which was imposed following disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. He had been proceeded against under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [(hereinafter the CCS (CCA) Rules] vide memo No. FB/B-2/2012/Disc.-N/11 dated January 28, 2015. It was alleged that Prasenjit while discharging functions as P.A., Howrah H.O., during the period from January 1, 2011 to January 27, 2015, posted SB withdrawal voucher (SB-7) for Rs.55,000/-. It was found that the said amount of Rs.55,000/- was withdrawn with the signature of one K.S. Srivastava, other than the actual depositor. It was also alleged that Prasenjit had neglected and failed to check withdrawal of such amount of Rs.55,000/- properly. The statement of imputation of misconduct framed against Prasenjit reveals that he did not check the withdrawal voucher of Rs.55,000/- in respect of Howrah R.S.S.O. SB A/C.No.888799 and he did not compare the signature of the depositor on the said withdrawal voucher (SB-7) with the specimen in the application card, as required under Rule 38 of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume 1. Had he checked the said withdrawal voucher (SB-7) properly and compared the signature of the depositor on the withdrawal voucher (SB-7) with the specimen in the application card (SB-3), then the irregularities would have been detected much earlier and misappropriation of Government money to the tune of Rs.41,51,375.00/- committed by one Bijoy Krishna Naskar, Ex. SPM, Howrah R.S.S.O. could have been prevented.
5. On 06.02.2015, Prasenjit approached the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices (the disciplinary authority) with his response (Annexure-A2 to the original application),. He asked for copies of relevant documents for raising defence as the alleged incident occurred in the year 2011 and he was not in a position to recollect the incident properly. On June 15, 2015, the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, being the disciplinary authority observed that the response (Annexure-A2) of Prasenjit was not at all convincing. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority punished Prasenjit and imposed a penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- (Annexure-A3 to the original application). Prasenjit challenged the order of the disciplinary authority imposing penalty on him by preferring an appeal under the provision of rule 23(ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules to the Director of Postal Services, South Bengal Region on June 26, 2015. In his appeal, Prasenjit specifically stated that he neither committed fraud nor was involved in t
