ups_00222 — Non-accounting of the money received from public by the EDBPM (Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster, Malhi of Nagpur Division) led to his removal from service, as such an irregularity committed by a public servant cannot be tolerated

Non-accounting of the money received from public by the EDBPM (Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster, Malhi of Nagpur Division) led to his removal from service, as such an irregularity committed by a public servant cannot be tolerated — This chunk pertains to a case involving an Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster named Shri Durgadin Hanuji Borkar who was accused of non-accounting of public funds and subsequently removed from servi... — Facts: The Applicant herein, an EDBPM of Malhi of Nagpur Division was put off duty due to certain allegations by the Respondents on 19-9-1991. Against that put-off duty, he approached the Tribunal which led to his reinstatement in service. This reinstatement was mainly due to the fact that he was put off duty on 19-9-1991 and the charge-sheet was issued only on 3-1-1992. But liberty was given to proceed against him for the irregularity committed by him. He was reinstated on 28-12-1993 paying him full back-wages on 15-1-1994. The enquiry on the charge-sheet, dated 3-1-1992 was continued. He dilly-dallied in replying the charge-sheet and also wanted to nominate Shri D.B. Walthare, a practising Advocate to assist him during the enquiry. That nomination of Walthare was rejected as the enquiry officer is not a legal practitioner and in a departmental enquiry the assistance to a charged employee cannot be a legal practitioner, if the Enquiry Officer, i.e., the departmental representative is not a legal practitioner. When the enquiry started on 20-8-1996, the Applicant submitted that he himself will defend his case. The alleged misconduct in the charge-sheet is that, he is guilty of non-accounting of an amount of ₹ 2,100 in S.B. Account in June-July, 1991. The Enquiry Officer on hearing both sides concluded that the charge framed against the Applicant was proved and he had to be punished severely by his report. Accordingly, the Competent Authority removed him from service by Order, dated 14-9-2004. His appeal, against that Order, dated 25-10-2004 was also turned down by Order, dated 31-3-2005. Hence the case arose in the CAT challenging the above orders. The Respondents reiterated stand as noted above. His punishment was well considered by the authorities and had to be sustained. The CAT upheld the rejection of engaging a lawyer for his assistance during the enquiry which is in accordance as per the judgment in the case of Port of Bombay v. Dilip Kumar [ 1982 (2) SCALE 1097 ] and reiterated in the case of Dinesh Chandra Pandey v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and another [ 2010 (7) SCALE 59 ]. Hence the refusal by department to engage a legal practitioner to assist the delinquent employee in the enquiry is in order. Lots of other impediments were also put by the delinquent Applicant which dragged on the enquiry. He refused to file his defence brief on the ground to file his reply which was filed on 1-12-2003. Taking into consideration the full case details and the brief of Presenting Officer of the department, the E.O. came to the conclusion that charges levelled against the Applicant stands fully proved. It was held that: