Back
2018 Supreme(Gau) 65
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI AT ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Ajit Singh, Manojit Bhuyan, JJ.
Union of India and Ors. - Petitioner
Vs.
Smti. Tarulata Barman W/o Sri. Digish Chandra Barman - Respondent
WP (C) 1562/2015
Decided On : 20-02-2018
For the Petitioners: Mr. Y. Doloi, Sr. C.G.C
For the Respondent:Dr. B. Ahmed, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that in disciplinary proceedings, adherence to the prescribed procedure and absence of violation of natural justice are crucial in reaching a decision.
Headnote:
Central Civil Services - Disciplinary Proceedings - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 16(1) - Rule 15(3)
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Sub Post Master, was proceeded against for failing to maintain integrity and causing monetary loss. The order imposing recovery from her pay was challenged before the Tribunal, which allowed the petition on the ground of violation of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The Court focused on the decision-making process and held that there was no departure from the procedure as envisaged under the law. It emphasized that the determination cannot be based on re-appreciation of evidence or the sufficiency of materials.
Issues: Violation of natural justice, adherence to disciplinary procedure
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the disciplinary authority followed the prescribed procedure under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and there was no violation of natural justice.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and allowed the writ petition, upholding the order of recovery from the respondent's pay.
MANOJIT BHUYAN, J.
This writ petition is presented against the order dated 16.05.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in OA No. 29/2013.
2. We have heard Mr. Y. Doloi, learned Senior Central Government Counsel (CGC) for the petitioners as well as Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel representing the sole respondent.
3. The respondent who at the relevant time was working as Sub Post Master of Joypur Rajabazar Sub Office under the establishment of Postal Services, Assam Circle was proceeded against under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short, “the Rules”) for failing to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as is required under Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, and also being responsible for monetary loss sustained by the Department. The statement of imputations was initially issued vide Memorandum dated 15.06.2009, to which the respondent had also submitted representation on 20.06.2009 However, the said Memorandum dated 15.06.2009 was cancelled as the incumbency period was shown incorrectly and a second Memorandum dated 19.02.2010 was issued on the same set of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour. The respondent made detailed representation on 19.04.2010 against the aforesaid second Memorandum dated 19.02.2010 Imputation against the respondent was that while working as Sub Post Master in the aforesaid Sub Office during the period from 11.07.2005 to 24.04.2008 she had concealed the fact of non-credit of Rs. 10,50,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Fifty Thousand) in the Government account by her husband Shri Digish Chandra Barman, the then Sub Post Master of the same Sub Office. It was further alleged that by her act in non-reporting the case, it had emboldened Shri Digish Chandra Barman to commit further fraud at Lakhipur Sub Office to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand).
4. On consideration of the statement of imputations communicated vide Memorandum dated 19.02.2010 as well as the representation of the respondent dated 19.04.2010 and other relevant records, the order dated 23.05.2011 was issued under the hand of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Cachar Division, Silchar imposing punishment on the respondent with recovery of Rs. 5,03,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Three Thousand) from the pay of the respondent in 36 monthly instalment at the rate of Rs. 14,000/- per month. This order was put to test before the Tribunal by the respondent in the aforesaid OA No. 29/2013, which was allowed vide order dated 16.05.2014 primarily on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice for non-assigning any reason for not holding any enquiry. The Tribunal also held that the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider all the points raised by the respondent in her representation dated 19.04.2010 in a fair and judicious manner. While setting aside the order dated 23.05.2011, the Tribunal directed the Disciplinary Authority to assign reasons for not holding enquiry and thereafter to consider all points raised in the representation dated 19.04.2010 The required exercise was directed to be completed within a period of 3(three) months with further observation that while passing a fresh order, the Disciplinary Authority shall bear in mind that the respondent is not to be held responsible for the alleged fraud done at Lakhipur Sub Office. Aggrieved, the present appeal is laid by the Union of India in the Ministry of Communications and others.
5. At the very outset, we make it clear that having regard to the scope of power of judicial review and the parameters for making interference in disciplinary proceedings, we are not entering into the factual aspect of the case. The determination of the case is focused on the decision-making process to ascertain whether in reaching the conclusion the Disciplinary Authority made any departure from the set procedure
