Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE, J.
Union of India & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Biraj Borthakur, S/o. Late Dimbeswar Borthakur - Respondent
WP(C) No. 7861 of 2019
Decided On : 24-07-2024
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - SERVICE LAW - CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964; CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - The court discussed the provisions of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, particularly Rule 3 regarding misconduct, and the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which govern disciplinary proceedings. The court emphasized that the disciplinary authority has the discretion to impose penalties based on the gravity of misconduct, and the standard of proof in such proceedings is the preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the disciplinary authority followed due process and that the penalty imposed was not disproportionate to the misconduct established.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, Sri Biraj Borthakur, was charged with fraudulent encashment of a demand draft worth Rs. 2,00,000 meant for GPF withdrawal of a colleague. Following a court of enquiry and disciplinary proceedings, he was penalized by reduction in pay. The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the penalty, leading to this writ petition by the Union of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the evidence and the charges against the respondent. It held that the disciplinary authority had acted within its jurisdiction and that the penalty imposed was justified based on the established misconduct.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were conducted fairly and whether the penalty imposed was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the disciplinary authority has the discretion to determine the nature of punishment based on the evidence presented. It emphasized that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is the preponderance of probabilities, and the court should not interfere unless the penalty is shockingly disproportionate.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, reinstating the penalty imposed on the respondent by the disciplinary authority.
JUDGMENT :
Kardak Ete, J.
By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Guwahati in O.A. No.045/00298/2016, whereby the Original Application filed by the respondent, namely- Sri Biraj Borthakur, has been allowed and the penalty imposed vide order dated 12.02.2016 against the respondent has been set aside.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as a Sub-Inspector (Pharmacist) a combatised non-gazetted post in SSB in the year 1984. Thereafter, he was appointed as a Circle Organiser (a civilian Gazetted post), the post which he had joined on 01.10.1991 and was promoted to the post of Special Area Organizer (in short ‘SAO’) and posted at Gangtok, Sikkim till September, 2008. Thereafter he was transferred to Bahraich in the State of Uttar Pradesh and then posted to the State of Arunachal Pradesh. During the service of the respondent as SAO at Gangtok, Sikkim, a Court of Enquiry was ordered by the Deputy Inspector of General, SHQ, Ranidanga, vide dated 21.01.2009. After the Court of Enquiry, it was, prima facie, found the involvement of the three officers/officials including the respondent namely- Sri Biraj Borthakur, Sri Vinod Kumar Agarwal and Sri Vijay Paul of having fraudulent encashment of demand draft worth Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) pertaining to GPF withdrawal of Smti Chandra Lama, UDC, Area Office, Sikkim.
3. The petitioners initiated a disciplinary proceedings against the respondent on account of fraudulent encashment of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) meant for payment of GPF withdrawal to Smti Chandra Lama, UDC, which was encashed at SBI, Gangtok, Sikkim on the basis of authorisation letter allegedly signed by the respondent in favour of one Sri Ramesh Kumar. The Memorandum of Charge dated 07.07.2011 was issued to the respondent on the following charges:-
ARTICLE-II: That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri B. Borthakur, SAO while functioning as DDO/officiating Area Organiser could not ensure official procedure in dealing with incoming/outgoing daks resulting in missing and embezzlement of Demand Draft No.0466-112355 dated 27.12.2007 amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- thereby violated Sub Rule 2(i) of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-III: That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri B. Borthakur, SAO misled the office by mentioning wrong date of issue of Demand Draft which he collected from PAO, SSB, New Delhi, thereby he caused unnecessary delay in investigation of missing draft which tantamount to misconduct in violation of Rule 3(1) (i) & (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-IV: That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri B. Borthakur, SAO being DDO of office used to keep cashier's key of Cash chest on Sundays and kept demand drafts meant for Area Organiser, Sikkim in his personal custody without making entry in the Diary register/valuable register for considerable period which tantamount to misconduct in violation of Rule 3(1)(i) & (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-V: That the said Shri B. Borthakur, SAO has paid an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to Sm
Grant of reinstatement - Court will not ordinarily interfere in the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings to substitute its own conclusion on penalty except where the punishment imposed ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the need for evidence-based findings and the principles of proportionali....
Financial upgradations do not change disciplinary authority; limited judicial review upholds dismissal for admitted forgery and misappropriation in disciplinary proceedings.
Disciplinary proceedings are invalid if based on prejudicial reliance on undisclosed inquiry reports and if initiated by an incompetent authority, infringing principles of justice.
The court emphasized that it would not sit in appeal over the findings of the Departmental Authority and would not re-appreciate the evidence which has come before the Departmental Authority. The cou....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
