om:70-cl-2023-May — In case of disagreement by the Disciplinary Authority on the inquiry report, justifiable reason for disagreement should be given and absence of the same vitiates the penalty order

In case of disagreement by the Disciplinary Authority on the inquiry report, justifiable reason for disagreement should be given and absence of the same vitiates the penalty order — The chunk provided describes the sequence of events in a disciplinary case against an employee named Deepak Kumar Sala, who was initially placed on "put-off duty" and then charged under Rule 10 of th... — Facts: The Applicant who was working as GDS BPM has filed this OA against the charge-sheet, dated 24-8-2005, punishment of removal passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide Order, dated 30-6-2006 and the order of Appellate Authority, dated 1/5-1-2009 as well as the order passed by the Revisional Authority, dated 15-7-2010 upholding the punishment of removal. The charges levelled against the Applicant in nutshell are that, he had received amounts of ₹ 20,000 and ₹ 25,000 from two persons for opening TD account but did not open the account. Thus, he has violated the provisions of Rule 21 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rule 2001. The case of the Applicant is that, two persons had come for opening TD Account but later on they had decided not to open the account and accordingly they were refunded the amount paid by them and the fact has been duly reflected in the Error Book and their signature got appended in the Error Book. The said Error Book was seen by Mail Overseer and the Superintendent of Post Offices, but they did not raise any objection. However, he was placed under “put-off duty” on 28-12-2004 and was proceeded against under Rule 10 of the GDS (C&E) Rules, 2001.

The inquiry was conducted and report was submitted with the findings that charges are not proved. However, the Superintendent of Post Offices, did not agree with the findings of the IO and forwarded the IO report with his disagreement to the Applicant for submission of representation, within 15 days. Applicant, pleading his innocence, submitted his representation, to disciplinary authority but rejecting the submission, the Disciplinary Authority awarded penalty of removal. Appeal as well as revision petition of the Applicant also were dismissed.

Respondents contend that the Applicant was imparted necessary training to discharge his new duties. He had accepted an amount of ₹ 20,000 and ₹ 25,000 from two persons but the same was not deposited to the Branch Post Office account for which the Applicant was proceeded under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2001. Explaining the procedure to be adopted for opening a recurring deposit account, the Respondents stated that there is no provision of entering in the Error Book and obtaining the signature which is an after-thought after the fraud had surfaced out. Since, after affording all opportunities to the Applicant and following due process of rules, Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of removal from service, which was upheld by the Appellate as well as Revisional Authorities in a well reasoned order, Respondents have prayed for dismissal of this OA. Applicant has filed rejoinder more or less reiterating the grounds taken in the OA and prayed for the relief claimed in the OA.

When the authority accepts the evidence and conclusion arrived at taking support therefrom, based on such evidence, the Disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. It is the stand of learned Counsel for the Applicant that in the inquiry report the IO has categorically found that charges under Articles I and II against the Applicant could not be sustained by the prosecution and not proved. The Disciplinary Authority recorded a disagreement note with the opinion that “the undersigned is of opinion that the charges framed against SPS Sri Deepak Kumar Sala is proved beyond doubt”. This method of expressing the conclusion without furnishing any reason is beyond the rules i.e. Para. 2 of DoP&T, OM, dated 12-11-2010 which stipulates that in case of disagreement, the Disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidences available on record be sufficient for such exercise. Here in the present case, the Disciplinary Authority should have reflected the reason for disagreement. The resultant order of punishment is just a preconceived outcome where the representation of the Applicant was a mere formality.