Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings limited to procedural fairness and evidence existence, not re-appreciating facts or substituting views; criminal acquittal does not bind departmental action on negligence charges.

O R D E R

Per: HON’BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A):

1. This O.A has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Set aside & quash the impugned Charge Sheet dated 16.09.2015 (Annexure A/4); Inquiry Report dated 20.10.2017 (Annexure A/5); Order-of-Penalty dated 30.11.2017 (Annexure A/1); Order-in-Appeal dated 27.12.2018 (Annexure A/2) and Order-in-Revision dated 09.03.2020 (Annexure A/3) in the interest of justice;

(ii) Call for the records of the case;

(iii) Set aside & quash the impugned penalty of “reduction of pay by two cells for a period three years” in the interest of justice.

(iv) Direct that the applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits and reliefs, in the interest of justice.

(v) Award the cost of this application in favour of the applicant.”

2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:

I. The applicant joined service as Postal Assistant on 06.01.1998. While working as Postal Assistant at S.B. Counter Jalandhar Cantt H.O., a Charge sheet dated 16.09.2015 (Annexure A/4) under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was served upon the applicant. The applicant submitted reply to Charge sheet on 23.9.2015 and denied the alleged charges. The Procedure in H.O. for Opening of Accounts & preparation of Pass Book etc is given in Rule 25 of POST OFFICE Man. Vol. I (Annexure A/8). According to this Rule, opening of an account in HO is a joint task to be completed jointly by the Counter Assistant & the Postmaster. According to sub (4) of Rule 25 ibid the Pass Book, application form (SB-3), pay-in-slip, Index to ledger card should be transferred to the Postmaster for necessary check & authentication. In the instant matter, this task of necessary check and authentication of the newly opened accounts was performed by Ms. Harvinder Kaur, Assistant Postmaster, Jalandhar Cantt, Head Post Office. The said Official has been examined both as Prosecution Witness(SW-4) & Defence Witness(DW-2) and copies of her statements dated 28.8.2008 & 04.3.2009 are annexed as Annexure A/6 &A/7 Colly.

II. It is submitted by the applicant that respondent No.3, appointed the Inquiry Officer on 16.9.2015 who submitted his report on 20.10.2017. However, notwithstanding these positive & favourable findings in favour of the applicant, the Inquiry Officer paradoxically and ironically held both the charges as proved against the applicant vide Report Dt. 20.10.2017 (Annexure A/5). The applicant submitted representation on 14.11.2017 (Annexure A/9) against the Inquiry Report, inter-alia, highlighting the irregularities and illegalities and violation of Rules and Procedure committed by the Inquiry Officer, in conducting the Inquiry & the Inquiry Report which vitiates the Inquiry Report.

III. Further, respondent No.3 passed the Order of Penalty dated 30.11.2017 (Annexure A/1), without objectively applying his mind to cogent, reasonable & well founded defence of the applicant, awarding the penalty of reduction of pay by two cells for a period of three years w.e.f. 01.12.2017 and the CO shall not earn increments, of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay (Annexure A/1).

IV. The applicant submitted Appeal dated 26.12.2017 (Annexure A/10) against the Order of Penalty to the Appellate Authority. It was inter alia submitted in the Appeal that the Disciplinary Authority had discussed the statement of Smt Harvinder Kaur dt. 04.3.2009(Ex-P-41) only but failed to take note of her statement dt