In cases of misappropriation of funds by a public servant, the loss of confidence in the employee is the primary factor for determining punishment, justifying dismissal regardless of the quantum of money involved, and courts should not interfere with such penalties on grounds of misplaced sympathy.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

Aggrieved by the enhancement of penalty of Censure into that of removal from engagement by the impugned order, dated, 04.08.2015, the applicant has filed the OA for setting aside the said order and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate him into service with all service benefits and to pass such further order as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper.

2. The facts that giving rise to the filing of the OA are as follows:

The Applicant was charge-sheeted under Rule 10 of the Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 by the 2nd Respondent vide memo dated 16.12.2011. The Applicant denied all the charges levelled against her. Consequently, an Inquiry Officer (IO) and Presenting Officer (PO) were appointed, and the disciplinary proceedings culminated in the imposition of the penalty of ‘Censure’ by order dated 30.06.2014. Subsequently, the 1st Respondent issued a show cause notice dated 27.12.2014, which was served on the Applicant on 30.12.2014, proposing to review the order dated 30.06.2014 passed by the 2nd Respondent. Notably, the said notice was issued after the expiry of six months from the date of the original punishment order. Furthermore, the language of the show cause notice clearly indicated a predetermined intention to remove the Applicant from engagement, rendering the issuance of the notice a mere empty formality. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the time limit for exercising revisional powers is six months from the date of the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. It is also mandated that not only must the show cause notice be issued within this period, but the final revisional order must also be passed within the same timeframe. In the present case, the 1st Respondent issued the show cause notice only after the expiry of the prescribed six-month period and passed the final order as late as 04.08.2015, i.e., more than one year after the original order dated 30.06.2014. Therefore, the action of the 1st Respondent is clearly time-barred, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law, rendering the impugned order liable to be set aside. Hence, the present Original Application.

3. The learned counsel for the Applicant contends that once the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 10 culminated in the imposition of the penalty of ‘Censure’ on 30.06.2014, the issuance of the show cause notice dated 27.12.2014 (served on 30.12.2014) by the 1st Respondent, after the expiry of six months, for the purpose of reviewing the said order is illegal and arbitrary.

4. It is further submitted that the 1st Respondent, in the show cause notice itself, had already made up her mind to remove the Applicant from engagement. Thus, the notice was not a genuine opportunity of hearing but a mere formality, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel also submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the limitation period for revision is six months from the date of the punishment order. In the present case, the notice appears to have been antedated as 27.12.2014 and issued only after the expiry of the limitation period, thereby rendering the action of the 1st Respondent unjustifiable.

5. It is further argued that a show cause notice must reflect only a tentative view proposing a possible punishment, and not a