Dismissed

Bhojaraj Babu Kamble v. Union of India through the Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Sept 2017WP/8135/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Postal Assistant, challenged his dismissal following a departmental enquiry where charges of procedural violations and acting in an unbecoming manner were proved. The High Court upheld the dismissal, finding the enquiry report reasoned, the opportunity granted, and the penalty not disproportionate.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition challenging the order of dismissal from service is dismissed.

Bhojaraj Babu Kamble Vs Union of India through the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1. civil wp 8135-16.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8135 OF 2016

¶5

Bhojaraj Babu Kamble .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India through The Secretary & Ors.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Appearances

¶10

Mr. Dilip Shinde i/by Mr. Deepak S. Paikrao Advocate for the Petitioner

¶11

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

¶12

DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.

¶13

DATE : SEPTEMBER 25, 2017.

¶14

ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

The petitioner joined the service in the department of

¶17

Indian Postal Service. While working as Postal Assistant at Sion Post Office, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 3.3.2005. The petitioner was issued a

¶18

charge sheet dated 3.3.2005. A departmental enquiry was

¶19

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 6

¶20

1. civil wp 8135-16.doc

¶21

conducted and the Inquiry Officer in his report dated 8.9.2005 held the charges under Article - I, Article-II, ArticleIII and Article-IV as proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of dismissal of service vide order dated 29.9.2006. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal, hence, the petitioner preferred Original Application

¶22

i.e O.A. No. 317 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai. In the said O.A., it was prayed that the order of dismissal from service be quashed and set aside. The said Original Application was dismissed by order dated 20.11.2012, hence, this petition.

¶23

It is seen from the records that the petitioner while

¶24

working as a Postal Assistant in Sion Post Office was issued a charge sheet dated 3.3.2005 containing the following articles of charges:-

¶25

ARTICLE I

¶26

That the said Shri. B.B. Kamble, while working as SBPA SB Road PO during the period 10.06.2003 to 28.07.2004 effected the payment of withdrawals for more than 500 RD & MIS account for the amount exceeding Rs. 20000/- in cash instead of by

¶27

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 6

¶28

1. civil wp 8135-16.doc

¶29

cheque thereby violating the orders of Govt. of India issued vide DG Posts letter No. 5-20/UP-06/2000-INV dated 28/29.8.2001 thus enabling Shri. Kamlesh D. Joshi and Smt. Harsha Joshi DSS agent to pocket the public money in huge amount without any difficulty.

¶30

ARTICLE II

¶31

That the said Shri. B.B. Kamble while working as SBPA SB Road PO during the period 10.06.2003 to 28.07.2004 effected the payment of premature closure in RD account no. 610623 in the name of Kokila S. Nanda for an amount of Rs. 18263/- dated 26.02.2004 without obtaining the signature of either the holder of the account or the messenger thus violating the provisions of rule 113(4) of POSB Vol. (I).

¶32

ARTICLE III

¶33

That the said Shri. B.B. Kamble while working as SBPA in SB Road PO during the aforesaid period failed to impress the date stamp on the warrant of payment of RD/MIS accounts given below after effecting payment thereby violating the provisions of rule 113(4) read with Rule 33(5)(i) of POSB Man. Vol. 1.

¶34

Account No.	Date of withdrawal /premature closure	Amt. of withdrawal
RD 609115	14.06.2004	16828/-
MIS 200789	13.03.2004	54000/-
MIS 200497	13.03.2004	18000/-

¶35

ARTICLE IV

¶36

That the said Shri. B.B. Kamble while working in the aforesaid office during the aforesaid period effected the payment of below mentioned RD accounts without tallying the signature of the depositors with that on the record i.e application for opening a SB account (SB-3) thus violating the provisions of Rule 113(4) read with Rule 33(5)(i) of POSB Vol. 1 thereby acting in a manner

¶37

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 6

¶38

1. civil wp 8135-16.doc

¶39

unbecoming of a Govt. Servant and failed to maintain devotion to duty thus violating the provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964.

¶40

SR. NO.	RD Account No.	Name of the holder of account	Date of withdrawal	Amount of withdrawal
1	609304	Sheetal S. Mange	31.05.2004	Rs. 8380/-
2	608889	Sheetal S. Mange Shraddha S. Mange	29.05.2004	Rs. 26457/-
3	610234	Jasoda J. Bhanushali Jayesh J. Bhanushali	29.12.2003	Rs. 25312/-
4	611572	Meena Bhanushali	07.01.2004	Rs. 8000/-

¶41

An enquiry was ordered and the petitioner participated in the inquiry proceedings. The Inquiry Officer in his report held that the articles of the charges from I to IV stand proved. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The articles of the charges which have been held as proved against the petitioner establish that there was a serious lapse on the part of the petitioner which facilitated the hard-earned deposits of the depositors to have gone out of the post office through the agents and as such the depositors have not received the amount. The petitioner has failed to follow the laid down procedure which required the petitioner to verify the signatures of the depositors with that of the signatures

¶42

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 6

¶43

1. civil wp 8135-16.doc

¶44

available on record. It has also been observed that inspite of the existence of instructions issued vide DG letter dated 28/29.08.2001 which make it mandatory to ensure payment of Rs. 20,000/-and above by cheque and obtain signature of the SPM on the cheque requisition, in contravention of these instructions and in violation of the laid down procedure, the petitioner released the payment by cash thereby permitting fraudulent transactions to take place.

¶45

As per the report of the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner in

¶46

his statement has admitted that he knew the existence of instructions regarding payment of Rs. 20,000/- and above by cheque. After the careful consideration of the report of the Inquiry Officer, we are of the view that the same is a reasoned report which gives definite findings on the articles of charge individually. No malafides have been alleged or established against the Inquiry Officer. We are also convinced that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to defend himself. We have perused the order

¶47

jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 6

¶48

1. civil wp 8135-16.doc

¶49

dated 29.9.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. We have not come across any infirmity in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Considering the grave charges alleged against the petitioner which have been conclusively established, the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner cannot be held as disproportionate. It is well settled that in a disciplinary proceedings, the standard

¶50

of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

¶51

Looking to the facts of this case, we are of the opinion

¶52

that the Tribunal has considered all the necessary facts and dismissed the O.A. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere. The petition is dismissed.

¶53

[ DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

¶54

jfoanz vkacsjdj 6 of 6

Bhojaraj Babu Kamble v. Union of India through the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhojaraj Babu Kamble v. Union of India through the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Vishnu Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandeep Ramesh Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rupa Vilas Khot Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahadu B. Sadlapurkar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Ramesh Marutrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Girish Ramaraoji Alone Vs the Government of Maharashtra through Addl. Chief Secretary and Ors.