Doctrine of Equality Applies to Co-Delinquents; Disproportionate Punishment for Similar Lapses is Discriminatory: Central Administrative Tribunal - 2025-07-24

Unequal Punishment for Co-Delinquents is Discriminatory, CAT Rebukes Postal Dept.

Ahmedabad, July 24, 2025 – The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has ruled that imposing a harsher punishment on one employee while letting off another, more senior, officer with a lighter penalty for the same incident is discriminatory and violates the doctrine of equality. The bench, comprising Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia (Member-J) and Hon’ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena (Member-A), partially allowed a plea by a postal department manager, setting aside a recovery order of ₹1,33,489 and remitting the matter back to the competent authority for reconsideration.

The Tribunal underscored that even among those found guilty, there must be parity in punishment, stating that a "harsher punishment was imposed upon the applicant herein, the said approach... cannot be permitted under the law."

---

Background of the Case

The applicant, Shri Arvindkumar, a Manager in the Vadodara Postal Region, was charged under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules for minor penalties. The charge stemmed from his tenure as an Inspector of Posts when he conducted annual inspections of the Sherkhi Branch Post-Office in 2007 and 2008.

It was alleged that his failure to verify two discontinued Recurring Deposit (RD) accounts, as prescribed in the inspection questionnaire, facilitated the non-detection of an ongoing fraud by the Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (GDS BPM), Shri H.R. Padhiyar. The fraud, involving non-crediting of public deposits, amounted to a total of ₹6,50,443. The department held Arvindkumar contributorily negligent and imposed a penalty to recover ₹1,33,489 from his salary. His subsequent appeals to the Disciplinary, Appellate, and Revisionary authorities were all rejected.

---

Key Arguments

Applicant's Position (Shri Arvindkumar):

* Discrimination: The primary argument was the stark disparity in punishment. A more senior officer, Shri M.J. Varma, also identified as a subsidiary offender in the same fraud case, was let off with a recovery of only ₹30,000.

* Procedural Flaws: The charge was hypothetical ("fraud could have been prevented"), and no direct financial loss was attributed to him. He argued that under departmental rules, recovery for contributory negligence can only be imposed when an official is directly responsible for the loss.

* No Full Inquiry: A huge financial liability was imposed under Rule 16 (minor penalty proceedings) without conducting a full-fledged departmental inquiry under Rule 14, which denied him the opportunity to properly defend himself against the charge of negligence.

* Inconsistent Standards: The same Revisionary Authority had, in another similar case (of Shri M.D. Danani), ruled that contributory negligence for inspectorial staff should be fixed at 10% of the defrauded amount, to be divided among the responsible staff. This principle was not applied to him.

Respondents' Position (Department of Posts):

* Negligence Proven: The Department contended that had Arvindkumar followed the inspection questionnaire (Question 16-A) and checked two discontinued RD accounts, the fraud would have been detected earlier.

* Contributory Negligence: His failure to perform his prescribed duty constituted contributory negligence, leading to a significant loss to the government exchequer.

* Due Process Followed: The penalty was imposed after considering his representations at every stage (disciplinary, appellate, and revisionary), thus complying with the principles of natural justice for a minor penalty proceeding.

---

Tribunal's Observations and Legal Reasoning

The Tribunal found substantial force in the applicant's arguments, particularly regarding the discriminatory treatment and procedural impropriety.

On Parity and Discrimination

The bench heavily relied on the doctrine of equality, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajendra Yadav vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (2013) , which holds:

"The Doctrine of Equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident."

The Tribunal noted the undisputed fact that a senior officer, Shri M.J. Varma, faced a much lighter penalty for the same contributory lapse. It found this differential treatment "arbitrary" and "discriminatory."

On Imposing Heavy Recovery Without Inquiry

The CAT also addressed the issue of imposing a significant financial recovery under minor penalty rules. It referenced the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in Union of India & Ors Vs C P Singh , which held that fastening pecuniary liability for negligence requires a detailed inquiry to determine the quantum of loss and the directness of the employee's role. The court observed:

"Any attempt to fasten any higher monetary liability on an employee without a regular inquiry by terming it as minor penalty would be travesty of justice."

The Tribunal concluded that imposing a recovery of ₹1,33,489 without a full inquiry was a legal infirmity and a violation of the principles of natural justice.

---

Final Decision

Finding the punishment to be disproportionate and discriminatory, the Tribunal set aside the penalty orders issued by the Disciplinary, Appellate, and Revisionary authorities.

The case has been remitted to the Competent Authority with a directive to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order, ensuring the applicant is treated equally with other co-delinquents like Shri M.J. Varma and in line with the principles applied in Shri M.D. Danani's case. The authority has been given 90 days to complete this exercise. Any excess amount recovered from the applicant is to be refunded accordingly.