IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. MANIKUMAR, N. AUTHINATHAN, JJ.
R. Pandian - Petitioner
Versus
The Postmaster General, Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 24376 of 2016
Decided On : 15-09-2016
SERVICE LAW - POSTAL SERVICES - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - ADMISSION OF CHARGES - NO NEED FOR INQUIRY - QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT - MISAPPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS - LOSS OF CONFIDENCE - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - JUSTIFIED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a GDSMD, was alleged to have committed fraud in payment of Money Orders entrusted to him, for payment to the members of the public. He was placed under put off duty and an Adhoc Disciplinary Authority was appointed to initiate disciplinary action against him. The petitioner admitted the charges and pleaded for leniency. The Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry with the preliminary hearing and submitted his report, holding that the charges as proved. The petitioner submitted a representation, admitting both the Articles of charge and pleaded guilty. The Ad hoc Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of removal from service. The petitioner's appeal and petition to the higher authorities were rejected. He filed an OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which confirmed the orders of the authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal held that the petitioner had voluntarily and unconditionally admitted all the charges and that there was no need to conduct an inquiry. It also held that the penalty of removal from service was not disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.
Issues: 1. Whether an inquiry is necessary when the delinquent himself has admitted the charges, framed against him? 2. Whether the penalty of removal from service was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. If the charged official pleads guilty of any of the articles of charge, the Inquiry Officer shall record the plea and return the finding of the guilt in respect of those Articles of charge to which the charged Official pleads guilty. 2. When a person is found guilty of misappropriating corporation's fund, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
S. Manikumar, J.
Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order, dated 16.12.2014, made in O.A.No.765 of 2012, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, confirming, (i) Charge Memo No.ADA/02/2010-11, dated 30.11.2010, issued by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (OD) & Adhoc Disciplinary Authority, Office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kanchipuram Division, Kanchipuram 631 501, the 3rd respondent herein; (ii) Proceedings of the 3rd Respondent, dated 14.02.2011, removing the petitioner from service, (iii) Order of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kanchipuram Division, Kanchipuram 631 501, the 2nd Respondent herein, in Memo No.ASP/Appeal-06/2010-11, dated 30.03.2011, confirming the order of 3rd Respondent dated 14.02.2011 and (iv) Order of the Postmaster General, Chennai, 1st Respondent herein, made in Memo No.VIG/Pet/1-1/2011/CCR, dated 30.11.2011, confirming the order of the respondents 2 and 3, dated 14.02.2011 and 30.03.2011 respectively. The writ petitioner has prayed to set aside the order above orders and consequently, sought for directions to the respondents 1 and 2, to conduct a fresh inquiry, after reinstating the petitioner in service, and to pay the enhanced compensation w.e.f. 01.11.2009 to 14.02.2011 to the petitioner.
2. Short facts leading to the writ petition are as follows:-
The petitioner was working as GDSMD, Aranvoyal BO, a/w Tirur SO, in the jurisdiction of Kanchipuram Postal Division. He was alleged to have committed fraud in payment of Money Orders entrusted to him, for payment to the members of the public. He was placed under put off duty, vide Memo of Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (ASP), Tiruvallur Sub Division, dated 04.08.2009. As the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (ASP), Tiruvallur Sub Division, appointing authority, was said to be one of the material witnesses in the case, the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (OD), Kanchipuram Division has been appointed by the Post Master General, Chennai City Region, Chennai, 1st Respondent, vide Memo, dated 20.07.2010, as the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority, with reference to the provisions in rule 5 of Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001. After verification and preliminary investigation, the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (OD) & Adhoc Disciplinary Authority, Office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kanchipuram Division, Kanchipuram 631 501, the 3rd respondent herein, has initiated disciplinary action, under Rule 10 of Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001, against the petitioner, vide charge-memo, dated 30.11.2010. The Articles of charges, framed against the petitioner, are as follows:-
"Article I:
That the said Shri R.Panuiyan GDS MD, Aranvoyal BO a/w Tirur SO under Tiruvallur HO while working as such did not pay the value of the following MOs to the payee in contravention of the provisions of Rules 121(2) and (4) read with preamble note under the head Postman in chapter III of Postal Manual Volume VI part III Sixth edition, the provisions of Rules 10(1) of Rules for Branch offices (Seventh Edition) and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity an devotion to duty as required of him under Rule 21 of Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules 2001:
(1) MO No. 4418-13 dated 30/4/09 of Tiruvallur HO for Rs.376/- payable to Smt. Jamuna.
(2) MO No. 4268-14 dated 27/02/09 of Tiruvallur HO for Rs.376/- payable to Smt. Jamuna.
(3) MO No. 4353-13 dated 02/04/09 of Tiruvallur HO for Rs.376/- payable to Smt. Jamuna.
Article II:
That the said Shri R.Pandiyan GDS MD, Aranvoyal BO a/w. Tirur SO under Tiruvallur HO while working as such did not pay the value of MO No.4765/21 dated 25.07.09 of Triuvallur HO for Rs.1500/- payable to Smt. G. Santha, to the payee and thus contravened the provisions of Rules 121(2) read with preamble note under the head Postman in Chapter III of Postal Manual Valume VI Part III Sixth
Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra reported in 1999 (1) SCC 759
Additional District Magistrate, Agra vs. Prabhakar Chaturvedi & Anr.
Channabasappa Basappa Happali vs. State of Mysore [AIR 1972 SC 32]
Commissioner and Secretary to the Government v. C. Shanmugam
Central Bank of India v. Karunamoy reported in AIR 1968 SC 266
H.P.RTC v. Hukam Chand reported in 2009 (11) SCC 222
High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil reported in 2000 (1) SCC 416
Government of T.N. v. A.Rajapandian reported in 1995 (1) SCC 216
Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. B.S. Hullikatti
Maruti Udvod Ltd. v. Ram Lai and Others [(2005) 2 SCC 638]
Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Bhola Nath Singh and others reported in 1997 (3) SCC 657
State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao reported in AIR 1963 SC 1723
State of Bihar & Ors. v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra [2006 (9) SCALE 549]
State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi & Ors. [2006 (13) SCALE 319]
Sangramsingh P. Gaekwad & Ors., v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (Dead), through LRs., & Ors.
Union of India v. Parma Nanda reported in 1989 (2) SCC 177
Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur reported in 1972(4) SCC 618
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.