om:101-cl-2012-aug — In a departmental disciplinary enquiry even if there is some material for punishing a delinquent employee based on enquiry findings, the Court / Tribunal cannot interfere with the punishment unless the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of charges

In a departmental disciplinary enquiry even if there is some material for punishing a delinquent employee based on enquiry findings, the Court / Tribunal cannot interfere with the punishment unless the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of charges — The given chunk is a summary of the court's decision in the case of Mukeshkumar B. Solanki v. Secretary, Department of Posts and others. This case involves a postman who was accused of improperly han... — Facts: The Applicant, a Postman, was charge-sheeted under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules by Memorandum, dated 11-7-2003. The charge relates to his improper entry of receipt of ' 30,000 deposit from a customer while he was working as ED BPM thereby contravening the Rules 131 (1) (2) A.B. (3) A.B.C.D.E. and (4) of the rules for Branch Post Office, thereby contravening Rule 17 of P&T EDAS (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. An enquiry was conducted which proved the charges except violation of B.O. Rule 131 (4). The Applicant filed his remarks on receipt of the enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority punished him by dismissing him from service and that was upheld by the Appellate Authority. Both the sides argued in favour of their clients. The Tribunal on hearing both sides observed that the Tribunal has limited power to interfere with the Disciplinary Proceedings unless there is violation of rules and procedures in the disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal satisfied with the proceedings of the Disciplinary case. The Applicant Counsel tried to state that non-availability of Passbook had jeopardized the enquiry. But the original passbook was perused by the delinquent at the initial stage and even after the original passbook was lost, a photocopy of the same was available. Further, the Applicant agreed to proceed with the enquiry with the photocopy of the passbook. The loss of passbook thus did not cause any inconvenience to the Applicant herein. The request of the Applicant is to get the opinion of the handwriting expert which was refused by the Respondents as there is other evidence to prove the charge. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [ 1995 (6) SCC 749 ], wherein it was held that neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor proof of fact of rule as defined therein apply to disciplinary proceedings and that if the finding is based on some evidence. Hence no interference is called for in this case. In the present case, the conclusions are supported on some evidence, both documentary as well as oral. The documentary evidence show that the amount received by the Applicant was not accounted for in the B.O. accounts. The Applicant cannot also argue that the case is foisted on him as he refunded the entire amount after the matter was detected. Refund of the amount is not denied by him. In the present case, all ingredients of principles as laid down in Apex Court judgment in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Kharak Singh [ 2008 (8) SCC 236 ] was followed. Hence the proceedings cannot be said to violate principles laid down in that judgment. Reliance of the Applicant on the case of Bhushan Dwivedi v. State of Jharkhand [ 2010 AIR (SC) 2472 ] is not relevant as the facts in this case is different from that case. The Apex Court held in the case of Tamil Nadu v. K.N. Ramamurthy [ 1997 AIR (SC) 3571 ] that Tribunal cannot take over the functions of the Disciplinary Authority which observation is relevant in the facts of this case. Summing up, it was held: