Disciplinary authorities must provide clear reasoning when disagreeing with inquiry findings, and failure to demonstrate due diligence in reviews can lead to quashing of penalties.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

By this Original Application, the applicant challenges the legality and validity of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The applicant has assailed the Charge Memo No. F- 4/1/2014-15 dated 10.02.2015, issued by respondent No.4, contending that the initiation of major penalty proceedings was arbitrary and illegal. Furthermore, the applicant has challenged the disagreement letter No.F-4/1/2014-15 dated 22.05.2017, whereby respondent No.4 disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer in an alleged pre-determined manner. The applicant has also impugned the penalty order dated 10.06.2017, imposing penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, as well as the subsequent show cause notice dated 28.08.2017, proposing enhancement of the penalty to that of dismissal from service. The final penalty order dated 09.11.2017, dismissing the applicant from service with disqualification for future government employment, and the appellate order dated 27.05.2019, rejecting the applicant‟s appeal, have also been assailed as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The applicant’s case is that on 10.02.2015, the applicant received a Charge Memo No. F-4/1/2014-15 of the same date, issued by respondent No.4. It was alleged that while discharging his duties as Postal Assistant, Jalesar Town SO, the applicant failed to properly account for the total amount of deposits in various Recurring Deposit (RD) accounts of Jalesar Town SO on multiple occasions. It was further alleged that the applicant misappropriated government funds, thereby committing financial irregularities.The articles of charge read as under:-

“Article No.1

Whereas said Shri Nitesh Kumar Saxena while working as PA Jalesar Town SO, during the period from 31.08.2012 to 10.04.2014, committed a grave misconduct in as much he did not account for the total amount of deposits Rs.428376.00 in various RD accounts of Jalesar Twon SO on various dates. As such he defrauded the Govt. money to the tune of Rs.428376.00.

Thus the said Shri Nitesh Kumar Saxena failed to follow the provisions contained in Rule-106 of POSB Manual Volume-1 and Rule-3 of General financial Rules.

Therefore it is alleged that the said Shri Nitesh Kumar Saxena failed to follow the provisions contained in Rule- 106 of POSB Manual Volume-1 and Rule-3 of General financial Rules.

Therefore it is alleged that the said Shri Nitesh Kumar Saxena failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in such a manner which is quite unbecoming of a Govt. servant as required under Rule 3(1)(i)(ii)&(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.“

3. The applicant has denied these allegations and contends that the charge memo was issued arbitrarily and without basis. The applicant denied the charges contained in the aforesaid Charge Memo dated 10.02.2015. The Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed to inquire into the charges by the respondents.

4. Counsel for the applicant briefly stated the background leading to the issuance of the charge memo. He submitted that it was the respondent No.5, who from his date of joining in SPO, Etah in February 2012 and till