Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 16221
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, J, Pramod Kumar Das, A
Sarat Chandra Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 1970 of 2021
For the Appellant: Mr. S. Jena
For the Respondents: Mr. S. B. Mohanty
Disciplinary actions require proven allegations with applicable evidence, and penalties must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
Headnote:(A) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14 - Disciplinary proceedings - The applicant challenged the punishment of compulsory retirement on grounds of lack of evidence for charges and disproportionate punishment. The Inquiry Officer found all charges unproven, but the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty. The Tribunal found the Disciplinary Authority's decision lacked reasoned application of mind and was disproportionate. (Paras 8, 7, 5, 6)
(B) Disciplinary Authority's duty - The Tribunal emphasized the need for sufficient evidence to sustain disciplinary actions, and mere surmises cannot justify penalties. The punishment must correlate with the gravity of proven offences. (Paras 7)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. engagement in disciplinary proceedings indicates the imposition of charges under ccs (cca) rules. (Para 1) |
| 2. the applicant contests the legitimacy and evidence of charges imposed by the disciplinary authority. (Para 2) |
| 3. the tribunal evaluates the adequacy of evidence in supporting disciplinary proceedings and proper application of authority’s discretion. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. emphasis on proportionality of punishment corresponding to established charges. (Para 7) |
| 5. final order for remittal of the case due to procedural lapses and lack of cogent reasoning. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The crux of the matter is that while the applicant was working as PA, Athamallik SO was charge sheeted under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide memorandum dated 25.08.2014 (A/1) containing four articles of charges. The matter was proceeded in accordance with rules. The IO held the inquiry and submitted its report on 19.09.2018 (A/2) holding all the charges as not proved. The Disciplinary Authority (AD) did not agree with the report insofar as article I and IV are concerned. Hence, the DA supplied copy of the report of the IO along with disagreement note insofar as Articles I and IV are concerned to the applicant. Applicant submitted his written statement of defence to the said report on 14.08.2020. Thereafter, the DA imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect vide order dated 04.02.2021 (A/5). Applicant preferred appeal on 12.08.2021 and the appeal having been rejected vide order dated 07.03.2022 (A/7), he has approached thisi) T qruibaushn athl eu ncdhearr gSeeschteioent d1a9t eodf t2h5e.0 A8.T2 0A1c4t,, 1(i9i)8 5o, ridnetre r oafl iad epferramyienngt tod a(ted 28.02.2020, (iii) order of punishment dated 04.02.2021 and (iv) order of AA dated 07.03.2022, on the gro unds as under:
(a) The charge sheet is not based on any genuine reason/ without any supporting documentary evidence/witness and, thus, is highly illegal and arbitrary;
(b) The IO after taking all the evidences and the statements held the allegations not proved but the DA disagreed relating to the allegation made in article I and IV without any basis rather being vindictive towards him.
(c) The DA imposed the punishment without weighing the gravity of the offence and, thus, the punishment is highly disproportionate to the common conscience.
(d) The AA upheld the order of punishment without due application of mind.
(e) The DA and the AA failed to take note of the fact that since the applicant was then working as SPO, it was not his duty to make entry in the sub office ledger regarding MGNREGS Muster Rolls rather it was the duty of the Postal Assistant, who should have made such entry.
(f) Similarly, the DA and AA failed to appreciate the fact that the allegation made in Article IV was completely vague and the IO has rightly held the same as not proved but the DA being vindictive did not agree with the report and made the disagreement note.
2. The above grounds have been reiterated/highlighted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant in course of argument and, accordingly, he has prayed for the relief claimed in the OA.
3. Respondents filed their counter contesting the case of the applicant on various grounds, which have been highlighted by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents in course of hearing stating inter alia that while the applicant was working as Sub Postmaster, Rajkishorenagar Sub Post Office, he received 33 nos. of muster rolls with cheques but he did not take necessary action as required under Rules for payment of NREGS wages within the mandate of three days for which there was abnormal delay in payment of NREGS wages. Similarly, the applicant manufactured money receipts by putting forged signature of auto drivers and, debited Rs.2900/- from Sub Post Office Account of Rajkishorenagar SO and took payment of conveyance charges towards expenditure on conveyance of cash from Account Office to different Branch Offices
