om:36-cl-2025-Mar — Enhancement of punishment by the Appellate Authority without adducing any additional grounds is not sustainable

Enhancement of punishment by the Appellate Authority without adducing any additional grounds is not sustainable — This chunk discusses a case where an employee, Shri K. Govindan, was charged for misappropriating money order payments while working as a GDS Mail Deliverer. Despite the state witnesses disowning the... — Facts: While working as GDS Mail Deliverer / Mail Carrier, Kilpaliyapattu BO, a/w Pachal SO, the Applicant was issued a charge-sheet, dated 16-11-2011 under Rule 10 of the GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011 alleging

(i) that while the Applicant was entrusted with ₹ 1,000 for payment of Money Order, he had deducted a sum of ₹ 50 and paid only ₹ 950 to the payee,

(ii) the Applicant did not pay the money entrusted to him for payment of Money Order for ₹ 1,000 each to one Rajathi and Neela and he utilized the said MO payment proceeds for his personal use and

(iii) the Applicant did not maintain the Postman Book from 18-6-2011 to 28-6-2011. The Applicant denied all the charges levelled against him. However, he voluntarily credited a sum of ₹ 2,100 under UCR at Pachal SO on 29-6-2011 towards alleged non-payment / short payment of MOs. In the enquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer, the state witnesses have disowned the contents of their statements. Still the Inquiry Officer held the charges as proved based on the preliminary investigation report. Based on the inquiry report, the third Respondent and ad hoc disciplinary authority, by Order, dated 30-4-2013, imposed the punishment of debarment of the Applicant from appearing in the recruitment examination for the post of Multi Tasking Group ‘C' and Postman for a period of three years. The Applicant did not prefer an appeal against the order of punishment. However, the second Respondent and Appellate Authority suo motu reviewed the order of punishment and Rule 19(1) of GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011 and issued a show-cause notice, dated 1-8-2013 to the Applicant and proposing to enhance the punishment to that of removal from engagement. Though the Applicant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice, the second Respondent, without considering the various points raised by the Applicant, by Order, dated 25-9-2013, 'removed' the Applicant from engagement. Aggrieved by the said order, the Applicant preferred a 'Revision petition', dated 7-10-2013 to the first Respondent. But that was also rejected by the first Respondent by Order, dated 1-1-2014. Hence the present OA. The Applicant denied the charges and further contended that he did not commit any irregularity and the depositions given by the state witnesses during the regular enquiry bear testimony to it. In the regular inquiry, all the state witnesses not only disowned the contents in the statements alleged to have been obtained from them but also deposed against the charges framed against the Applicant. The Applicant contended that he was not allowed by the Inquiry Officer to peruse the original documents. Moreover, out of 22 additional defence documents requested by him, only 15 documents were supplied and that the request of the Applicant for producing the only defence witness was also rejected by the Inquiry Officer. Ultimately, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report based on the statements obtained during the preliminary enquiry and held the charges as ‘proved'. Thus, the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry in total violation of the rules in force. However, he accepted the punishment and rejoined duty. The Applicant further contended that the 2nd Respondent had already decided to enhance the punishment to that of removal from engagement even while issuing the show-cause notice and that the show-cause notice was an empty formality. The Respondents contended that based upon complaints about short / no-payment of OAP MOs, enquiries revealed that the Applicant was responsible for short payment / non-payment of OAP MOs and therefore he was proceeded against under Rule 10 of GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011 by the third Respondent and ultimately imposed the punishment of debarment from appearing in the recruitment examination for the post of Multi Tasking Group ‘C' and Postman for a period of three years. The second Respondent and Appellate Authority however found that the punishment was inadequate to the proven charges and therefore issued a show-cause notice proposing enhancement of punishment to that of 'removal from engagement'. Not convinced with his reply, the appellate authority, by Order, dated 25-9-2013, imposed the punishment of 'removal from engagement'. The Petition, dated 7-10-2013 preferred by the Applicant was also dismissed by the first Respondent stating that there was no sufficient reason to interfere with the enhanced penalty. The Learned Counsel further contended that the enhanced penalty was commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed by the Applicant. The Counsel for the Respondent extensively relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Union of India v. V. Loganathan and also the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Grido Ltd. and another v. Shri Sadananda Doloi and others and several other judgments to hold that as long as there is no procedural irregularity or violations of statutory provisions, the Tribunal cannot interfere with the decision taken.