SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 17125

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ramji Lal Goswami – Appellant
Versus
D/o Post – Respondent
O.A./405/2015



In cases of embezzlement by public servants, dismissal is the only appropriate punishment despite earlier lesser penalties imposed, provided proper procedures were followed.

Headnote:(A) GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 - Rule-19(1) - Charge of embezzlement against Gramin Dak Sevak - Initial punishment of three-year debarment from recruitment enhanced to dismissal - Revising Authority's authority to review after six months upheld - Procedural stipulations and principles of natural justice were substantially followed, thus dismissal upheld as proportionate punishment. (Paras 1, 26, 27)

(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Judicial review principles in disciplinary matters outlined - Tribunal cannot reappreciate evidence or penalties unless they are shocking or disproportionate. (Paras 11, 12)

Table of Content
1. background of disciplinary action and charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. applicant's denial of misconduct (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. legal status of revising authority's actions (Para 7)
4. judicial review parameters and discipline authority's findings (Para 11 , 12 , 16 , 19 , 22)
5. findings on penalty justification and tribunal's conclusion (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. final order of dismissal (Para 29)

ORDER

Per : Hon’ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)

The Applicant in this O.A., a Grameen Dak Sevak (GDS) charged with embezzlement of Rs.136970/- while working as Branch Post Master (BPM) of Shakkarkhawda Branch Post Office (BO), was aggrieved by the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority (D.A.) vide impugned Memo dated 30.06.2014 – of debarring him from appearing in the recruitment examination for the post of Multi-Tasking Staff/Postman/Postal Assistant for a period of three years ; and was further aggrieved by that punishment being enhanced by the Chief Post Master General (CPMG) Rajasthan Circle, as Revisioning Authority (R.A.) [also mentioned as (Revising, or Revisional, or Revisionary) Authority in the documents/pleadings)] to that of Dismissal from Engagement, which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government, vide impugned Memo dated 23.04.2015.

2. The Applicant was initially appointed as GDS and BPM of Shakkarkhawda BO under Chaksu Accounts Office, Jaipur. During that period, arrangements were in place for payment of wages to workers in National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), through post offices situated in villages. During the Applicant’s functioning as GDS BPM at Shakkarkhawda BO, on the basis of a complaint dated 10.12.2010 received from the Office of the District Magistrate & Collector Jaipur, regarding alleged non- payment of NREGS wages, a preliminary enquiry was conducted. It was reported thereby that the Applicant had received on 02.07.2010 two separate lists for payments for Rs.70,343/- and Rs. 68,360/- respectively to be made to certain NREGS labourers. He had incorporated the aforesaid two lists in the branch post office accounts and thereafter made payment on 05.07.2010 and 07.07.2010 respectively to the NREGS labourers. However, the same lists were again shown as received for payment and entered in the Shakkarkhawda BO Accounts on 09.08.2010 by the Applicant, who purportedly made payment of Rs. 136970/- against those a second time on 11.08.2010 to the same NREGS labourers.

3. Vide Memo dated 05.10.2011 of the Superintendent of Post Offices (SPOs), Jaipur (Mofussil) Postal Division, i.e. Respondent No.3., it had been charged that the Applicant/Charged Officer (CO) while working as BPM at Shakkarkhawda BO under Chaksu Accounts Office had received on 02.07.2010 two Lists for NREGS labour payment amounting to Rs.70343/- and Rs.68630/- respectively ; and the payments against the same were shown as per branch accounts to have been made on 05.07.2010 and 07.07.2010. However, the same Lists were again shown as received in the Shakkarkhawda BO on 09.08.2010 ; and against that, payment of Rs.136970/- was shown to have been made on 11.08.2010 in the BO Accounts - but the said amount was instead embezzled by the BPM, the Applicant/CO without actual payment the second time. Therefore, by such action, the Applicant/CO had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as expected of him as per Rule-21 of the GDS(C&E) Rules-2011. Vide his statement of defence dated 02.11.2011 to the D.A., the Applicant/CO had inter alia stated that he had meanwhile deposited back the amount that was paid for the second time, together with interest ; that he would not repeat such mistake in future ; and that he sought to be forgiven once. Nonetheless, the D.A. decided to get the matter inquired into in detail ; and hence appointed an Inquiry Officer (I.O.) vide Memo dated 15.12.2011.

4. At first, the I.O. furnished his Report on 23.01.2012, enclosing t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top