In cases of proved misappropriation of funds by a public servant, the primary factor for determining the severity of punishment is the loss of official confidence rather than the quantum of money involved, and courts should not interfere with the penalty imposed unless the inquiry process is fundamentally flawed.

ORDER

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

Aggrieved by the order of removal from service awarded by the 2nd respondent, vide his order. Dated 08.09.2016 and which has been upheld by the Appellate Authority, the 1st respondent herein vide his order dated 13/18.04.2017 the applicant has filed the OA for setting as the said orders and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all attended benefits.

The facts that give rise to the filing of the OA are as follows: The applicant was placed under suspension with effect from 21.06.2006 while serving as Sub-Postmaster, Pallipalayam Agraharam Sub Office, by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 21.06.2006, on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated/pending against him. Subsequently, a charge sheet dated 31.10.2012 was issued to the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, alleging that he had committed certain irregularities while functioning as Sub-Postmaster, Pallipalayam Agraharam SO. The applicant denied the charges vide his reply dated 17.11.2012/19.11.2012. Consequently, an inquiry was ordered into the allegations. During the course of the inquiry, the applicant submitted a representation, dated 22.10.2013 requesting the Inquiry Officer to furnish 19 additional documents required for his defence, clearly stating the reasons for such request. However, the inquiry was not conducted in a proper manner. The charge sheet itself had been issued after an inordinate delay. Further, the Presenting Officer proceeded without producing adequate oral and documentary evidence and submitted his brief dated 07.04.2016. The applicant reiterated his denial of the charges and contended that he had been denied access to 13 out of the 19 documents sought by him. He further submitted that the inquiry was conducted in violation of established legal principles. Accordingly, he filed a detailed reply dated 02.05.2016 to the Presenting Officer’s brief. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer’s report dated 09.05.2016 was furnished to the applicant by the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 12.05.2016. Upon receipt of the report, the applicant submitted his representation dated 08.06.2016. However, without duly considering the applicant’s submissions to the Presenting Officer’s brief as well as the inquiry report, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 08.09.2016 removing the applicant from service with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred an appeal dated 07.10.2016 before the 1st respondent who confirmed the said punishment vide his order dated 13/18.04.2017. Hence, the present Original Application.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the charge sheet was issued after an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly six years from the date of the alleged incidents. The applicant further submits that the disciplinary inquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner, inasmuch as he was denied the supply of 13 out of the 19 documents specifically requested by him for the purpose of his defence. Such denial has resulted in a violation of the principles of natural justice and deprived the applicant of a reasonable opportunity to effectively defend his case. He further contends that he had submitted a detailed reply dated 02.05.2016 to the Presenting Officer’s brief; however, the Inquiry Officer failed to consider the same in its entirety, having dealt with certain aspects while completely omitting others. This clearly demonstrates that the disciplinary proceedings were not conducted in accordance with law and suffered from procedural irregularities.

Learned counsel further submitted that SW-1, Smt. Ambiga, during her cross-examination on 24.08.2015, made statements which were contradictory to her earlier version. She deposed that SE-2 had been written by her uncle, Shri Boopathy, based on a written version provided by the Investigating Officer. Similarly, with regard