Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13552

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M. Swaminathan, J, Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, A
N. Thirugnanam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s. R. Malaichamy
For the Respondents: Mr. Su Srinivasan, SCGSC

Removal from service upheld for postal employee's admitted misappropriation of public funds; loss of confidence paramount over amount involved – no judicial interference on sympathy or proportionality grounds in fiduciary breach cases.

Headnote:(A) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14, Rule 29(I)(v); CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii); Post Office Savings Bank Manual Vol. I - Rule 31(2)(ii), 33(5); Constitution of India - Article 311(2) - Disciplinary proceedings - Misappropriation of public funds by postal employee through unauthorized withdrawals and deposits from savings accounts - Employee unconditionally admitted charges during inquiry - Disciplinary Authority imposed reduction in pay by 3 stages for 5 years - Reviewing Authority enhanced punishment to removal from service after show cause notice and consideration of representation - Appeal against removal rejected - No violation of natural justice principles where charges admitted; inquiry validly concluded at preliminary stage - Punishment of removal appropriate for breach of trust involving public money; loss of confidence primary factor, not quantum of amount - Courts/Tribunals should not interfere on grounds of misplaced sympathy or proportionality in cases of financial misconduct by employees in fiduciary positions - Highest integrity required for those handling public funds; such misconduct to be dealt with iron hands. (Paras 13-21)

(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Review/Enhancement of Penalty - Reviewing Authority competent to enhance punishment under Rule 29(I)(v) after show cause notice and hearing - No pre-determination where opportunity provided and response considered - Appellate Authority justified in upholding enhanced penalty absent extenuating circumstances or procedural lacunae. (Paras 7, 16-17)

Facts of the case:
Postal employee charged with fraudulent withdrawals totaling specified amounts from two savings accounts without account holders' knowledge, forging thumb impressions and pay slips during 2006-2010, violating postal manual rules and conduct rules - Admitted charges unconditionally in writing and during inquiry on 07.03.2014 - Inquiry concluded same day as proved - Initial punishment of pay reduction imposed 27.03.2014 - Reviewing Authority issued show cause notice 12.06.2014 proposing removal - Employee replied seeking leniency citing family circumstances - Removal ordered 08.09.2014, confirmed in appeal 24.12.2014 - Original Application challenging orders dismissed by Tribunal.

Findings of Court:
No infirmity in inquiry proceedings; charges proved by unconditional admission - Enhancement to removal justified given nature of offence involving misappropriation and breach of trust - Impugned orders legal and proportionate.

Issues: (1) Validity of inquiry concluded at preliminary stage based on admission without full procedure; (2) Proportionality of enhanced removal penalty; (3) Compliance with natural justice and Article 311(2); (4) Legality of review power exercise for penalty enhancement.

Ratio Decidendi: When employee guilty of misappropriating public funds loses employer's confidence, dismissal/removal is appropriate punishment irrespective of amount involved - Sympathy impermissible; integrity paramount for fiduciary roles - Judicial interference unwarranted absent procedural illegality, especially post-admission of guilt. Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing iron-handed approach to financial misconduct.

Result: Original Application dismissed. No order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. oa challenges removal from service order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. inquiry violated natural justice principles. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. applicant admitted fraud; review powers valid. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. precedents support dismissal for misappropriation. (Para 9 , 10)
5. removal appropriate for fiduciary misappropriation. (Para 12 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
6. charges detailed; unconditional admission proven. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
7. oa dismissed; no interference warranted. (Para 22)

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

“(i) To call for the records of the 2nd respondent made Memo No.STC/17-1/2012/TRY/TR, dated 12.06.2014, and the order of removal from service of the Applicant made in Memo No.STC/18-2/2014, st dated 08.09.2014, and the order of the 1 Respondent made in Memo No.STC/2-4/2014, dated 24.12.2014, and set aside the same, consequent to;

(ii)Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service with all service benefits and;

(iii To pass such further or other order as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows: The applicant was issued Charge Sheet, dated 13.02.2014, under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Taking into account the applicant's past satisfactory service, the 3rd Respondent imposed a punishment of reduction of pay by 3 stages for a period of 5 years, effective from 01.04.2014, vide his order, dated 27.03.2014. However, the 2^nd Respondent, acting as the Appellate Authority, was dissatisfied with the 3rd Respondent's decision and sought to increase the punishment to removal from service. This led to the issuance of the Show Cause Notice, dated 12.06.2014. The 2nd Respondent, having already made up his mind in the Show Cause Notice, dated 12.06.2014, proceeded to remove the applicant from service by an order, dated 08.09.2014, which was served on the applicant on 09.09.2014. The applicant, aggrieved by this decision, filed a petition with the 1st Respondent, but it was rejected by an order, dated 24.12.2014. The applicant submits that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the charges framed against him. Hence, the present Original Application.

3. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the modified penalty imposed by the Reviewing Authority is unjustified and disproportionate to the allegations. The counsel further argued that this penalty violates the principles of natural justice as guaranteed under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Additionally, the counsel noted that the Inquiry Officer did not obtain briefs from the Prosecuting Officer (PO) or from the defence. Consequently, the Inquiry Officer's Report was prepared without considering these briefs, rendering the report invalid.

4. The counsel further contended that the Rule 14 Inquiry was effectively concluded at the preliminary sitting, where the applicant's deposition was wrongly considered as proof of the Articles of Charge. The applicant was neither provided with copies of the 29 listed documents for review during the inquiry nor was informed about the availability of assistance from a Government Servant. Therefore, the 2nd Respondent ought to have conducted a proper inquiry and issued an appropriate order, but failed to do so.

5. The learned counsel also pointed out that the Appellate Authority has also not considered the lacuna in conducting the inquiry before nd rejecting the appeal. Hence, it is his contention that the 2 Respondent had already made up his mind to remove the applicant from service, and, as such, the action of the 2^nd & the 1^st respondents is unjustifiable. Therefore, he prayed for the relief sought in the present OA.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the applicant had indeed committed multiple acts of fraud, totalling Rs. 91,406/-, through fraudulent withdrawals and unaccounted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13552

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALM. Swaminathan, J, Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, AN. Thirugnanam – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOA

Removal from service upheld for postal employee's admitted misappropriation of public funds; loss of confidence paramount over amount involved – no judicial interference on sympathy or proportionality grounds in fiduciary breach cases.

Cases Referred (5)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M. Swaminathan, J, Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, A
N. Thirugnanam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA