Acquittal in a criminal trial does not absolve a government servant from liability in a departmental inquiry, as the standards of proof and the scope of inquiry (procedural negligence vs. criminal intent) differ.

Per Mr. Rameshwar Vyas :

1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 5th October, 2012 (Annex.A/2), imposing a penalty of reduction in rank for three stages for a period of three years without cumulative effect passed under Rule 12 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur, as also the order dated 24th July, 2015, rejecting the Revision Petition filed under Rule 29 of the said rules, the applicant has preferred this O.A. with a prayer to quash the above orders.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as under :

3. As per the Statement of Articles of Charges framed, the applicant, while working as a SPM, Laxminagar Post Office, Jodhpur, failed to ensure correct payment of five Kishan Vikas Patras (KVPs) in denomination of Rs.10,000/- each to its holder Smt. Lichhi Devi or her genuine nominee. The amount was paid to the wrong person. The applicant failed to confirm the address of its holder as given on the original KVPs as also on the transfer application as is required under Rule 23(1) of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual, Vol.-II .

4. As per the second charge framed under the Articles of Charges against him, the applicant, while making payment of the above KVPs failed to compare and notice the vast noticeable differences in the signature of holder available on identity slip of transfer application and five KVPs at the time of payment on 08th June, 2002 and thereby facilitated forged maturity payment of the KVPs, which is in violation of the provisions of Rule 23 (1) & 31 (2) of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Vol.-II.

As per the third charge levelled against him, the applicant, failed to prepare and submit the advice of payment of five KVPs in proper form NC-10 and also failed to submit them to the office of issue i.e. Jodhpur HO and as such, violated the provisions of Rule 23 (1) & 31 (2) & (6) accordingly.

5. After denial of charges by the applicant, an inquiry was conducted under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, by the Inquiry Officer in the presence of the Presenting Officer and his defence nominee. The Inquiry Officer, after analyzing the evidence, concluded that the transfer application was filed in the name of the holder of KVPs Smt. Lichhi Devi, wherein her address was not mentioned. Had the applicant inquired into the address, the encashment of the KVPs to a wrong person, could be avoided. The applicant also failed to inquire with regard to variance in the signatures of the holder of the certificates as available in the identity slip and the certificates. With the observation that the applicant has accepted Charge No.3 on account of work-load, the Inquiry Officer found all the charges proved against him.

6. The applicant made a representation against the report of inquiry. After considering the representation against the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority, vide its order dated 05th October, 2012 (Annex.A/2), found the charges proved against the applicant and imposed upon him a penalty as aforesaid. The Revision Petition filed against the above order of penalty, was also dismissed vide order dated 24th July, 2015 (Annex.A/1). Being aggrieved by the above, the applicant has preferred this O.A.

7. The record reveals that for the same incide