ups_00578 — Removal from service awarded to a GDS employee, herein, he had put in only 2 years of service, even though the charges of misappropriation of some amount in 3 cases received by him for payment of electric bills were proved, considering that he had put in only two years of service before the incident and being a youngster, was set aside and a direction was given to award lesser punishment commensurate to the charges and his age. Till such time, the punishment is reconsidered and a lesser punishme

UPS

Removal from service awarded to a GDS employee, herein, he had put in only 2 years of service, even though the charges of misappropriation of some amount in 3 cases received by him for payment of electric bills were proved, considering that he had put in only two years of service before the incident and being a youngster, was set aside and a direction was given to award lesser punishment commensurate to the charges and his age. Till such time, the punishment is reconsidered and a lesser punishment was awarded the Applicant will be treated to be under deemed suspension — The chunk provided is discussing the court order in a case where an employee was penalized for not fully remitting telephone bill charges. The order has been set aside, and the case is remanded back ... — Facts: The Applicant herein, was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak and was posted as Branch Postmaster at Kavthe Malkapur Branch Post Office in Ahmednagar District. He deposited telephone bills of less amount of ₹ 790, 100 and 108. That was noticed during inspection on 23-11-2006. On 5-4-2007, he was issued with a charge-sheet under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 for remitting less amount. Even though, the Applicant pleaded that less amount was deposited due to oversight it was not due to misappropriation. He also gave an undertaking that he will be careful in future. As enquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Kopargaon Sub-Division and found him guilty. R-1, Superintendent of Post Offices, Shrirampur, punished him accepting the enquiry report by removing him from services. On appeal the punishment was upheld. Revision petition, dated 22-9-2008 was also dismissed by R-3, Postmaster-General. Hence this OA is filed challenging the removal order. The reliefs sought for is to set aside the punishment orders as the authorities had committed a grave error in punishing him and the penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charges. The Tribunal heard both sides. "The only question for consideration of the Tribunal in this case is, whether the order of removal passed by the Disciplinary Authority and maintained by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority is liable to be set aside on the grounds raised by the Applicant℃" The Tribunal can interfere only if the conduct of the enquiry proceedings are not in accordance with rules and the charged employee was given enough opportunities to prove his innocence. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others [ 1996 (1), SC Services Law Judgment 9 ], the scope for interference by Court in Disciplinary cases is limited. The relevant Para is reproduced. Keeping the Apex Court judgment in mind, the case was considered by Tribunal. The Tribunal reproduced the two charges. By remitting short in bill the amount received by the Applicant; hence violated Rule No. 165 of GDS Rule VI Edition, corrected up to 31-3-1975. The second charge is misappropriated the bill charges to the extent noted above. The first charge of remitting the telephone bill of only ₹ 510 instead of ₹ 700 which was not considered by all authorities, the same is evident from record and impugned orders cannot be quashed on this ground alone. As regards these contentions of the Applicant that the enquiry was conducted hurriedly, the Applicant himself accepted the charges and also assured that he will not repeat such mistake in future although he denied the misappropriation of Government funds. The Tribunal considering voluntary admission of both the charges, the inquiry officer did not think it necessary to record statement of the witnesses in support of charges and submitted the inquiry report to Disciplinary Authority, R-1 who passed the order of removal from service. Hence, it cannot be said that the inquiry was conducted hurriedly or without following the prescribed procedure and in fact the same was conducted expeditiously and the Applicant also fully co-operated for an early decision. In the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. Shyam Lal [ 2004 (2) SC Services Law Journal 221 ], it was held that so far as the admission of the guilt in disciplinary proceeding is concerned, it is always treated as the best piece of evidence against the person making the admission. But it is up to the person as to why his admission should not be quoted against him. The Applicant in this case admitted that he made short remittances of the telephone bill charges. This fact is not at all considered by the authorities while accepting the admission of the Applicants and imposing major penalty of removal from service and hence the imposition of penalty needs to be considered afresh since the possibility that there was inadvertent mistake in calculation cannot be ruled out. However, it is a fact that the Applicant retained with him part of the amount recovered till it was credited to the Government on 23-11-2008. Hence, both the authorities are right in holding the charges levelled against the Applicant. There is nothing on record to prove the Applicant was coerced to admit the charges levelled against him. Written statement and oral evidence of admission by the Applicant prove the charges. The Tribunal did not find any force in the ground raised by the Applicant that he was compelled to admit the charges especially when he has not examined any witnesses in this regard nor had given particulars of the stand taken by him. The Tribunal also held that the amount to be deposited to the bank being small, the Applicant could have inadvertently remit part charges and not full charges. It is obvious from record that the Applicant was negligent in crediting the exact amount received by him to the Government and this follows that he failed to maintain full devotion to duty and also absolute integrity thereby violating the provision of Rule 21 of the GDS Rules. Whether the non-remittance of full amount in the bank is concerned, it is true that there is nothing in Rule 21 of GDS Rules to indicate that the words "misconduct" or "misappropriation of Government Funds" are incorporated. However, the terminology that, "every Sevak shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty" can safely be stated to have wider impact, effect and meaning which covers many instances of misconduct. Money not fully remitted may mean using the fund for personal use. In a D&A enquiry, it is not necessary to establish the charges by following strict rules as is done in criminal cases. In a departmental proceedings, preponderance of probabilities only has to be seen and considered. The very fact that, the Applicant failed to credit full amount received by him from the customers towards electricity and telephone bills prima facie indicates that he utilized the said amount for his personal use. This clearly establishes that he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, although according to him it was on account of inadvertent mistake without any mala fide intention. His voluntary disclosure for not remitting the full amount indicates that both charges levelled against him are proved which was rightly said so by authorities. Even though, the case is proved against the Applicant while imposing punishment to the Applicant, some other factors and circumstances need to be considered such as the young age of the Applicant and the fact that he had put in only two years of service before the incidents of crediting of less amount than collected by him. He repaid the amount not deposited in the bank. Perusal of orders, passed by the authorities that they took note of only the unconditional admittance of the mistake by the Applicant may have not considered the statement of the Applicant of his inadvertent mistake in not remitting full amount in the bank. Inadvertent mistake is a normal human tendency. Such inadvertent mistake had not taken place earlier which the Respondents failed to notice which shows that the Applicant had no bad service record in the past. The contention of the Applicant that he tried to establish necessary procedure is not material. Section 9 of GDS Rules, prescribes as many as different penalties which may be imposed on the charged officer by Appointing Authority for good and sufficient reasons. Rule 10 prescribes procedure for imposing the penalty on a charged official. The enquiry report should first be served on the charged official. Only after hearing him on perusal of enquiry report, punishment can be imposed which has been done in this case. The law laid down in B.C. Chaturvedi's case (supra) and also the decision of Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 84 of 2011, Union of India v. Shivappa M. Jabgond and others decided on 12-9-2011 the case of B.C. Chaturvedi was considered. Based on the above cases, it is considered that since the Applicant is not exonerated of the charges, it will be just and necessary and in the interest of justice to remand the matters to Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration of issue of imposition of penalty by considering various factors mentioned in this judgment and come to a conclusion if lesser punishment can be imposed considering various factors commensurate to the misconduct of the Applicant keeping in mind the proportionality of punishment. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Hazarilal [ 2008 (1) SCC (L&S) 611 ], it has been held that the disciplinary power must be exercised reasonably and fairly keeping in view the nature of offence and sentence imposed in a criminal prosecution, although, in the present case there is nothing to indicate that the Applicant can be prosecuted for commission of offence of misappropriation of Government funds nor punished by the Criminal Court.

UPS

Removal from service awarded to a GDS employee, herein, he had put in only 2 years of service, even though the charges of misappropriation of some amount in 3 cases received by him for payment of electric bills were proved, considering that he had put in only two years of service before the incident and being a youngster, was set aside and a direction was given to award lesser punishment commensurate to the charges and his age. Till such time, the punishment is reconsidered and a lesser punishment was awarded the Applicant will be treated to be under deemed suspension — The chunk provided is discussing the court order in a case where an employee was penalized for not fully remitting telephone bill charges. The order has been set aside, and the case is remanded back ... — Facts: The Applicant herein, was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak and was posted as Branch Postmaster at Kavthe Malkapur Branch Post Office in Ahmednagar District. He deposited telephone bills of less amount of ₹ 790, 100 and 108. That was noticed during inspection on 23-11-2006. On 5-4-2007, he was issued with a charge-sheet under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 for remitting less amount. Even though, the Applicant pleaded that less amount was deposited due to oversight it was not due to misappropriation. He also gave an undertaking that he will be careful in future. As enquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Kopargaon Sub-Division and found him guilty. R-1, Superintendent of Post Offices, Shrirampur, punished him accepting the enquiry report by removing him from services. On appeal the punishment was upheld. Revision petition, dated 22-9-2008 was also dismissed by R-3, Postmaster-General. Hence this OA is filed challenging the removal order. The reliefs sought for is to set aside the punishment orders as the authorities had committed a grave error in punishing him and the penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charges. The Tribunal heard both sides. "The only question for consideration of the Tribunal in this case is, whether the order of removal passed by the Disciplinary Authority and maintained by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority is liable to be set aside on the grounds raised by the Applicant℃" The Tribunal can interfere only if the conduct of the enquiry proceedings are not in accordance with rules and the charged employee was given enough opportunities to prove his innocence. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others [ 1996 (1), SC Services Law Judgment 9 ], the scope for interference by Court in Disciplinary cases is limited. The relevant Para is reproduced. Keeping the Apex Court judgment in mind, the case was considered by Tribunal. The Tribunal reproduced the two charges. By remitting short in bill the amount received by the Applicant; hence violated Rule No. 165 of GDS Rule VI Edition, corrected up to 31-3-1975. The second charge is misappropriated the bill charges to the extent noted above. The first charge of remitting the telephone bill of only ₹ 510 instead of ₹ 700 which was not considered by all authorities, the same is evident from record and impugned orders cannot be quashed on this ground alone. As regards these contentions of the Applicant that the enquiry was conducted hurriedly, the Applicant himself accepted the charges and also assured that he will not repeat such mistake in future although he denied the misappropriation of Government funds. The Tribunal considering voluntary admission of both the charges, the inquiry officer did not think it necessary to record statement of the witnesses in support of charges and submitted the inquiry report to Disciplinary Authority, R-1 who passed the order of removal from service. Hence, it cannot be said that the inquiry was conducted hurriedly or without following the prescribed procedure and in fact the same was conducted expeditiously and the Applicant also fully co-operated for an early decision. In the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. Shyam Lal [ 2004 (2) SC Services Law Journal 221 ], it was held that so far as the admission of the guilt in disciplinary proceeding is concerned, it is always treated as the best piece of evidence against the person making the admission. But it is up to the person as to why his admission should not be quoted against him. The Applicant in this case admitted that he made short remittances of the telephone bill charges. This fact is not at all considered by the authorities while accepting the admission of the Applicants and imposing major penalty of removal from service and hence the imposition of penalty needs to be considered afresh since the possibility that there was inadvertent mistake in calculation cannot be ruled out. However, it is a fact that the Applicant retained with him part of the amount recovered till it was credited to the Government on 23-11-2008. Hence, both the authorities are right in holding the charges levelled against the Applicant. There is nothing on record to prove the Applicant was coerced to admit the charges levelled against him. Written statement and oral evidence of admission by the Applicant prove the charges. The Tribunal did not find any force in the ground raised by the Applicant that he was compelled to admit the charges especially when he has not examined any witnesses in this regard nor had given particulars of the stand taken by him. The Tribunal also held that the amount to be deposited to the bank being small, the Applicant could have inadvertently remit part charges and not full charges. It is obvious from record that the Applicant was negligent in crediting the exact amount received by him to the Government and this follows that he failed to maintain full devotion to duty and also absolute integrity thereby violating the provision of Rule 21 of the GDS Rules. Whether the non-remittance of full amount in the bank is concerned, it is true that there is nothing in Rule 21 of GDS Rules to indicate that the words "misconduct" or "misappropriation of Government Funds" are incorporated. However, the terminology that, "every Sevak shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty" can safely be stated to have wider impact, effect and meaning which covers many instances of misconduct. Money not fully remitted may mean using the fund for personal use. In a D&A enquiry, it is not necessary to establish the charges by following strict rules as is done in criminal cases. In a departmental proceedings, preponderance of probabilities only has to be seen and considered. The very fact that, the Applicant failed to credit full amount received by him from the customers towards electricity and telephone bills prima facie indicates that he utilized the said amount for his personal use. This clearly establishes that he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, although according to him it was on account of inadvertent mistake without any mala fide intention. His voluntary disclosure for not remitting the full amount indicates that both charges levelled against him are proved which was rightly said so by authorities. Even though, the case is proved against the Applicant while imposing punishment to the Applicant, some other factors and circumstances need to be considered such as the young age of the Applicant and the fact that he had put in only two years of service before the incidents of crediting of less amount than collected by him. He repaid the amount not deposited in the bank. Perusal of orders, passed by the authorities that they took note of only the unconditional admittance of the mistake by the Applicant may have not considered the statement of the Applicant of his inadvertent mistake in not remitting full amount in the bank. Inadvertent mistake is a normal human tendency. Such inadvertent mistake had not taken place earlier which the Respondents failed to notice which shows that the Applicant had no bad service record in the past. The contention of the Applicant that he tried to establish necessary procedure is not material. Section 9 of GDS Rules, prescribes as many as different penalties which may be imposed on the charged officer by Appointing Authority for good and sufficient reasons. Rule 10 prescribes procedure for imposing the penalty on a charged official. The enquiry report should first be served on the charged official. Only after hearing him on perusal of enquiry report, punishment can be imposed which has been done in this case. The law laid down in B.C. Chaturvedi's case (supra) and also the decision of Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 84 of 2011, Union of India v. Shivappa M. Jabgond and others decided on 12-9-2011 the case of B.C. Chaturvedi was considered. Based on the above cases, it is considered that since the Applicant is not exonerated of the charges, it will be just and necessary and in the interest of justice to remand the matters to Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration of issue of imposition of penalty by considering various factors mentioned in this judgment and come to a conclusion if lesser punishment can be imposed considering various factors commensurate to the misconduct of the Applicant keeping in mind the proportionality of punishment. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Hazarilal [ 2008 (1) SCC (L&S) 611 ], it has been held that the disciplinary power must be exercised reasonably and fairly keeping in view the nature of offence and sentence imposed in a criminal prosecution, although, in the present case there is nothing to indicate that the Applicant can be prosecuted for commission of offence of misappropriation of Government funds nor punished by the Criminal Court.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text