In disciplinary proceedings, the principles of natural justice require affording the employee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, including an oral enquiry if requested, and violation of these principles renders the punishment imposed unsustainable.

P. KALAIYARASAN, J.

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 30.08.2013 in O.A. No. 809 of 2012 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) and quash the same.

2. The facts of the case are as follows :

The second respondent is the applicant before the Tribunal. The second respondent/ applicant when working as officiating Postmaster at Dindigul Head Office, faced departmental proceedings. He was first issued with office memo and then charge memo, alleging that during the period from 18.01.2008 to 24.01.2008 sanctioned additional credit liability to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- without verifying the genuineness of the payment of huge amount with reference to the accounts of the Depositors and he failed to initiate action as per Rules for keeping excess cash by Sub Post Master, Vedasandur and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty. The second respondent/applicant was directed to submit his written statement of defence and he also submitted his written representation, dated 03.03.2011.

(ii) The Disciplinary authority, without conducting any oral enquiry, as requested by the applicant, ordered the recovery of Rs. 75,000/- at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month for 30 months commencing from May 2012. He preferred an appeal before the third petitioner herein and the appeal was also dismissed on 28.06.2012.

(iii) The second respondent/applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and the order of the Disciplinary Authority has been quashed by the Tribunal. Against which, this writ petition has been filed by the Union of India and other respondents before the Tribunal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the negligence of the second respondent/applicant has caused a pecuniary loss of Rs. 3,74,058/- to the Department and Rs. 1,01,34,912/- subsequently. The second respondent/applicant did not make any request for perusal of the documents. It is further contended that the oral enquiry, as per Rule 16(1)(A) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. (herein after called as CCS (CCA), Rules, 1965) is permissible, only in cases where it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period. But no such penalty was awarded to the second respondent/applicant and therefore, no enquiry is required.

4. The second respondent/applicant was served with a charge memo and directed to submit his written statement of defence. The second respondent/applicant also submitted his representation. In the written statement, the applicant sought reasonable opportunity to call for some additional documents and produce witness on his behalf to rebut the allegations. But the Disciplinary Authority without affording any opportunity to the second respondent/applicant passed orders for recovery of Rs. 75,000/- at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month.

5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that as per Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, oral enquiry is required only in cases where the proposed punishment would affect the pensionary benefits and in this case, oral enquiry was not conducted as the punishment proposed did not affect the pensionary benefits.

6. In this case, huge amount, namely Rs. 75,000/- has been ordered to be recovered from the second respondent/applicant from his monthly salary at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- p.m. In any Disciplinary proceedings, the employee should have a reasonable opportunity of being heard. T