The Division Bench dismissed the Department of Post's writ application challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order quashing an enhanced punishment. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that enhancing the fine was unjustified as the employee's negligence was minor compared to underlying fraud discovered later.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.332 of 2012
===========================================================
.... .... Petitioners.
Versus
Bijay Mohan Mishra, S/O Late Sawalia Mishra, resident of Mohalla-I.T.I. Colony, Bettiah, at present working as Postal Assistant at Office of the Superintendent of Post Office, Bettiah Division, Bettiah.
.... .... Respondent.
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, C.G.C. For the Respondent : Mr. Hemant Kumar Karn, Adv.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
And
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) Date: 24-07-2015
The present writ application has been filed by the Department of Post, being aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter in short referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), by which Tribunal has set aside the order of the appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, whereby the punishment as awarded to the contesting respondent, an employee of the post office, was drastically enhanced. The Tribunal held that the punishment had already been provided for by the disciplinary authority and Rs.45,000.00 was imposed as cost recoverable. The appellate authority, apart
Patna High Court CWJC No.332 of 2012 dt.24-07-2015
- 2 -
from noting that there was a grave misconduct, nothing more was said and the charge realizable was enhanced to Rs.3,30,000.00, which was held to be grossly disproportionate and, accordingly, the Tribunal set it aside.
Having heard learned counsel for the Department and learned counsel for the employee, we agree with the Tribunal. The first thing that was required to be shown as to what negligence of the employee lead to loss and second was the extent of loss. Here, it is not in dispute that the employee was a mere Assistant. There were several other people involved i.e. the postal agent, the Deputy Postmaster and the people at the other post office to whom K.V.P. is allegedly issued. All that is said is that the employee failed to note in the dispatch register promptly the dispatch of payment advice. It is thereafter speculative that had the dispatch advice been correctly noted, it would have reached the other post-office in time and a report would have come, thus, stopping the second payment. This is only speculative. In fact, we find that dispatch was made and a report did come. The report clearly admitted issuance of K.V.P. from the other post-office. It is a different matter. Later further investigation revealed that even this report was fraudulently sent by some person in the other post-office. Thus, to virtually blame
Patna High Court CWJC No.332 of 2012 dt.24-07-2015
the delinquent employee and to enhance the punishment is not justified.
We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal as also with the order of the appellate authority whereby a fine of Rs.45,000.00 was imposed.
Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)
(Nilu Agrawal, J.)
Trivedi/NAFR
U
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the Tribunal which had quashed a disproportionate enhancement of punishment imposed on a postal employee.
Whether the punishment enhancement was justified given the speculative nature of causation and subsequent discovery of fraud.
Whether the appellate authority was solely responsible for the enhancement without noting grave misconduct.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Union of India through the Post Master General, Northern Region
Bijay Mohan Mishra
Navaniti Prasad Singh
Nilu Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
