ups_00576 — Applicant, a GDS BPM was removed from service on account of his failure to maintain devotion to duty by collecting excess charges amounting to ₹ 13,002. But the punishment is shockingly excessive. Hence removal from service is unwarranted and some other minor punishment only is to be given

UPS

Applicant, a GDS BPM was removed from service on account of his failure to maintain devotion to duty by collecting excess charges amounting to ₹ 13,002. But the punishment is shockingly excessive. Hence removal from service is unwarranted and some other minor punishment only is to be given — This chunk pertains to an Original Application (OA) filed against the removal order of a Gramedia Distribution Services Branch Post Master (GDS BPM) who was accused of failing to maintain devotion to... — Facts: Applicant, a GDS BPM of Nalgonda Division was charge- sheeted for his failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required under Rule 21 of GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001. Applicant was removed from duty with immediate effect. General findings and discussion in this connection are noted in the judgment. Applicant's appeal against his removal order was rejected. Appellate order in this connection is reproduced which is ordered in exercise of powers conferred vide Rule 18 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 by which his removal was justified. This OA is filed against the removal order as it is stated by the Applicant as illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice. Respondents justified their stand in this punishment case. It is enough if the details of Tribunal's order is brought out in this case. Tribunal noted that in the preliminary enquiry under Rule 10, dated 24-11-2011, it is recorded that "as charged officer himself admitted the charge under Article 1 under charge-memo, dated 29-9-2011 unconditionally, the enquiry is conducted at this stage". Tribunal noted that in this case there is no such specific question of admission of guilt "but the statement contains only limited area that due to heavy pressure of work and failure of calculator due to some problem, the mistakes of over-charging occurred thereby excess charging in NRGES wage-seekers withdrawal were taken place which was not intentional. Thus, Applicant himself admitted his guilt with due feeling. Enquiry Officer instead of going into the details of inquiry confined to statement of admission of guilt of the Applicant though there is no such admission and concluded the enquiry on the sole basis of admission of guilt of the Applicant. Respondents failed to make any statement to show by proven papers and documents that the Applicant admitted his guilt voluntarily or unequivocally. The statement of Applicant is not the sole reason for accepting guilt without proper enquiry. In such circumstances, the legal prejudice is deemed to have been caused to the Applicant on account of violation of principle of natural justice and mandatory rules. Hence if the Applicant made an admission of charges before the Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority, the admission made cannot be the sole basis of awarding punishment especially when the flavor of admission cannot be said to make the same voluntarily or unequivocally. It is virtually involuntary and equivocal admission. Excess charges right from 30-5-2017 on 11 occasions totalling to the tune of ₹ 13,102 while the Applicant was discharging his duties as GDS BPM is violation of Rules 133 and 134 or Rule of Branch Offices. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal held that the removal of the Applicant from engagement imposed is disproportionate even if some lack of devotion in his duty exists. Taking into account the conspectus of the case, the Tribunal held that the major punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the Applicant. In the case of UT of Dadra and Nagar Haveli v.Gulabhia M. Lad. [ 2010 (5) SCC 775 ], the Apex Court held that the Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion of Competent Authority in imposing punishment unless the same suffers from illegality or procedural irregularity of material nature or punishment is "shockingly disproportionate". In the case of Dev Singh v. Punjab Tourism Deb Development Corporation Ltd. and another [ 2003 AIT (SC) 3712 ], it was said that the punishment awarded can be moulded by Court if the punishment shocks the conscience. In the present circumstances, Tribunal interfered with the punishment awarded to the Applicant, dated 29-6-2017 and set aside the same. Respondents are given liberty to impose lesser punishment.

UPS

Applicant, a GDS BPM was removed from service on account of his failure to maintain devotion to duty by collecting excess charges amounting to ₹ 13,002. But the punishment is shockingly excessive. Hence removal from service is unwarranted and some other minor punishment only is to be given — This chunk pertains to an Original Application (OA) filed against the removal order of a Gramedia Distribution Services Branch Post Master (GDS BPM) who was accused of failing to maintain devotion to... — Facts: Applicant, a GDS BPM of Nalgonda Division was charge- sheeted for his failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required under Rule 21 of GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001. Applicant was removed from duty with immediate effect. General findings and discussion in this connection are noted in the judgment. Applicant's appeal against his removal order was rejected. Appellate order in this connection is reproduced which is ordered in exercise of powers conferred vide Rule 18 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 by which his removal was justified. This OA is filed against the removal order as it is stated by the Applicant as illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice. Respondents justified their stand in this punishment case. It is enough if the details of Tribunal's order is brought out in this case. Tribunal noted that in the preliminary enquiry under Rule 10, dated 24-11-2011, it is recorded that "as charged officer himself admitted the charge under Article 1 under charge-memo, dated 29-9-2011 unconditionally, the enquiry is conducted at this stage". Tribunal noted that in this case there is no such specific question of admission of guilt "but the statement contains only limited area that due to heavy pressure of work and failure of calculator due to some problem, the mistakes of over-charging occurred thereby excess charging in NRGES wage-seekers withdrawal were taken place which was not intentional. Thus, Applicant himself admitted his guilt with due feeling. Enquiry Officer instead of going into the details of inquiry confined to statement of admission of guilt of the Applicant though there is no such admission and concluded the enquiry on the sole basis of admission of guilt of the Applicant. Respondents failed to make any statement to show by proven papers and documents that the Applicant admitted his guilt voluntarily or unequivocally. The statement of Applicant is not the sole reason for accepting guilt without proper enquiry. In such circumstances, the legal prejudice is deemed to have been caused to the Applicant on account of violation of principle of natural justice and mandatory rules. Hence if the Applicant made an admission of charges before the Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority, the admission made cannot be the sole basis of awarding punishment especially when the flavor of admission cannot be said to make the same voluntarily or unequivocally. It is virtually involuntary and equivocal admission. Excess charges right from 30-5-2017 on 11 occasions totalling to the tune of ₹ 13,102 while the Applicant was discharging his duties as GDS BPM is violation of Rules 133 and 134 or Rule of Branch Offices. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal held that the removal of the Applicant from engagement imposed is disproportionate even if some lack of devotion in his duty exists. Taking into account the conspectus of the case, the Tribunal held that the major punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the Applicant. In the case of UT of Dadra and Nagar Haveli v.Gulabhia M. Lad. [ 2010 (5) SCC 775 ], the Apex Court held that the Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion of Competent Authority in imposing punishment unless the same suffers from illegality or procedural irregularity of material nature or punishment is "shockingly disproportionate". In the case of Dev Singh v. Punjab Tourism Deb Development Corporation Ltd. and another [ 2003 AIT (SC) 3712 ], it was said that the punishment awarded can be moulded by Court if the punishment shocks the conscience. In the present circumstances, Tribunal interfered with the punishment awarded to the Applicant, dated 29-6-2017 and set aside the same. Respondents are given liberty to impose lesser punishment.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text