Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 14349
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Om Prakash VII, Judicial Member, Anjani Nandan Sharan, Administrative Member
Anil Kumar Verma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 330/1350 of 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.K. Kushwaha
For the Respondents: Rajni Kant Rai
Suspicion cannot substitute proof in disciplinary proceedings; mandatory compliance with CCS (CCA) Rule 14(18) required; criminal acquittal on identical facts vitiates departmental punishment based solely on conjecture.
Headnote:(A) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14 - Disciplinary proceedings - Postman accused of misappropriating cheque by hiding and exchanging speed post articles, forging account, and encashing it - FIR under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC led to arrest, suspension, and major penalty charge sheet dated 31.3.2010 - Inquiry Officer held charges proved; punishment of reduction of pay imposed vide order dated 2.7.2012, upheld in revision dated 21.02.2015 - Applicant acquitted in criminal trial on same facts vide judgment dated 28.03.2024 after examination of same witnesses - No direct evidence or eyewitness to hiding/removal of envelope; case rested purely on suspicion and conjectures - No documentary evidence linking applicant to account opening or encashment - Applicant not responsible for sorting dak; merely assisted - Rule 14(18) not complied with as Inquiry Officer failed to interrogate charged officer with incriminating material when he did not examine himself - Acquittal in criminal proceedings on identical facts and evidence vitiates departmental findings based on preponderance of probability when no legally admissible evidence exists - Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof even in domestic enquiries - Principles of natural justice require scrupulous care to avoid punishing innocents - Non-compliance with mandatory Rule 14(18) vitiates entire proceedings - Charge sheet, inquiry report, punishment and revisional orders quashed. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
(B) Disciplinary proceedings vis-à-vis criminal acquittal - Standard of proof in departmental proceedings (preponderance of probability) does not permit upholding findings based solely on suspicion when criminal acquittal on same evidence, witnesses, and facts establishes charges disproved or not proved - Identical charges and evidence render continuation of disciplinary action unjust, unfair, and oppressive. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
Postman collected speed post envelopes containing cheques from insurance company, alleged to have hidden one, exchanged contents with another, conspired to open forged account, and encashed cheque of Rs.1,25,200/- - FIR lodged, arrested, suspended, bailed out - Departmental enquiry concluded with punishment despite criminal acquittal on same facts.
Findings of Court:
Departmental proceedings vitiated by lack of evidence, reliance on suspicion, non-compliance with Rule 14(18), and criminal acquittal on identical evidence - All impugned orders set aside with consequential benefits.
Issues: (1) Whether departmental findings sustainable absent direct evidence and based purely on suspicion despite criminal acquittal on same facts? (2) Mandatory nature of Rule 14(18) compliance when charged officer does not examine himself.
Ratio Decidendi: Findings based on mere suspicion, conjectures, and surmises without legally admissible evidence cannot sustain even under preponderance of probability standard, particularly when criminal court acquits on same evidence; Rule 14(18) is imperative, its violation vitiates enquiry.
Result: Original Application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of alleged postal fraud and disciplinary proceedings (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. parties' arguments on evidence, acquittal, and proof standards (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. precedents on suspicion, natural justice, and mandatory rules (Para 9) |
| 4. no evidence beyond suspicion; rule 14(18) violation vitiates enquiry (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. quashing disciplinary orders due to lack of proof (Para 12) |
ORDER
By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
By means of present O.A., the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
“(i) The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned charge sheet dated 31.3.2010, impugned inquiry report dated 11.06.2012, punishment order dated 2.7.2012 and revisional order dated 21.02.2015 along with impugned undated audit report (Annexure A-4A) with all consequential benefits.
(ii) The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to further direct the respondents to after restoration of the pay as it has never been reduced and then grant the benefit of 6th Pay Commissions along with its arrears with interest.
(iii) To issue any order, direction or further orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award costs in favour of applicant”.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant while posted as Postman, an FIR was lodged against the applicant on 20.06.2008 under section 420,467, 468, 471 IPC. In pursuance of FIR, applicant was arrested by the police. Due to detention, the applicant was suspended vide order dated 23.08.2008. However, the applicant was enlarged on bail vide order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 19.05.2009. Thereafter the applicant was served with the major penalty chargesheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide memo dated 31.3.2010. Enquiry proceedings were started against the applicant. The Inquiry Officer had submitted an enquiry report proving the charges framed against the applicant. Applicant submitted representation dated 22.06.2012 against the enquiry report and raised several issues. On the basis of the report of the Inquiry Officer, disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of reduction of pay at lowest in the pay band for 5 years without cumulative effect. Against the aforesaid punishment order, applicant submitted revision petition to the Chief Postmaster General, Lucknow. The revision petition of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 21.2.2015. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid orders, the applicant has filed present original application.
3. Per contra, respondents have filed counter affidavit in which it has been stated that applicant while working as Postman Amroha HQ collected three window envelopes on 01.11.2007 addressed to Smt. Vimla Devi contains cheques of different amounts of policies held in the name of late Shri Satveer Singh from LIC Amroha under pick mail service. Applicant handed over those three speed post articles along with other booked articles to Shri Rajveer Singh, Export PA for further disposal. The articles were transferred from the export section to the import section. The applicant while sorting the speed post articles removed the speed post article No. EU70273546681N containing cheque amounting Rs. 1,25,200/- from the relevant sorting cage and kept it hidden in deposit shorting cage with intention to misappropriate the amount of cheque by opening a forged account. Thus, out of these three speed posts, only two could be delivered to the addressee Smt. Vimla Devi. Similarly on 02.11.2007, the applicant collected window envelope from LIC Ltd. Amroha and booked speed post with article No. EU7027365111N addressed to Sri Ramesh. As the applicant was assisting in sorting work this day also, the contents of speed post no. EU702735468IN which was booked on 01.11.2007 and hidden by the applicant were exchanged with the speed post no. EU702736511IN booked on 02.11.2007 by replacing them from the concerned window envelope. After ex
