This Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash a Tribunal order and set aside a removal order concerning a post office employee found guilty of theft, absence without leave, and unauthorized duty changes, finding the punishment proportionate.
The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.24684 of 2002
ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed a) to call for the records relating to the order, dated 07.08.2002, in Original Application No.1376 of 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (For short, ‘the Tribunal’) and quash the same; b) to declare the order of removal passed by the 1st respondent in its proceedings No.PF/ED-16/SD(E), dated 06.07.1992, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent in its order, dated 28.06.2000 in F1/10/9091, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.
2. Petitioner herein/applicant filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal challenging the order No. F1/10/90-91, dated 28.06.2000, passed by the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal, upon considering the material available on record, dismissed the Original Application.
3. While petitioner herein was working as contingent Chowkidar at Himmatnagar Post Office, a theft had occurred on 19.11.1990 in the Sub Office, wherein cash of Rs.39,463/- was lost. A complaint was lodged with Gopalapuram Police Station and the petitioner was put off duty with effect from 28.11.1990. Thereafter, a charge memo was issued to him on 13.09.1991, which was served on 28.09.1991. Thereafter, Articles of Charges have been framed against the petitioner, which read as follows:
“Article-I:
Shri B.Sridhar Rao while working as
EDMC/Pkr Gowthamnagar, EDSO was also working as Contingent Chowkidar at Himmatnagar SD EDSO deserted duty at Himmathnagar Sub Office on 19.11.1990 night allowed unauthorized persons to sleep in the post office and thereby contributed to the theft of office cash to a tune of Rs.39,483/-. In his absence on the said day night, the thieves broke open the locks of the cash chast embodied in the post office and stolen cash of Rs.39,483/-. It is, therefore, alleged that the said Shri B.Sridhar Rao acted in the manner which is unbecoming of a ED Agent and thus failed to maintain devotion to duty as required by Rule 17 of P & T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964.
Article-II:
Shri B.Sridhar Rao, while working as EDMC/Pkr Gowthamnagar EDSO in Secunderabad Division, unauthorizedly absented duty without proper letter of prior permission from the competent authority from 20.11.1990 to 27.11.1990. It is, therefore, alleged that the said ED Agent failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty as required by Rule 17 of the P & T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964.
Article –III:
Shri B.Sridhar Rao while working as EDMC/Pkr Gowthamnagar EDSO also worked as contingent night watchman, Sweeper and Waterman at Himmatnagar SD and never reported to the undersigned about his performing anti farious duties in another post office. He did not obtain the approval of the appointing authority to work in various types of jobs in another post office. He thus concealed the fact working in various types of jobs in another post office and failed to maintain integrity and thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 17 of P & T ED Agents (conduct & service) Rules 1964.”
4. It is not in dispute before this Court that on 19.11.1990 during night, the petitioner was absent from discharing his official duties and he entrusted his duties unlawfully to his friend Sri T.Guravaiah. During his absence, a theft had occurred causing loss to a tune of Rs.39,483/-to the Department. Punishment was imposed accepting the enquiry report. Challenging the said punishment order, petitioner filed Original Application No.107 of 1998 before the Tribunal and the same was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority. Accordingly, petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority. The said appeal was disposed of by the appellate authority by its order, dated 09.03.1998. Challenging the said order, again petitioner filed Original Application No.589 of 1998 before the Tribunal on the ground that the order passed by the appellate authority was not a speaking order and it was not passed by the competent authority. After considering the facts of the case, the Tribunal by its order, dated 02.11.1999, set aside the order, dated 09.03.1998, and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the appellate authority has passed the impugned order, dated 28.06.2000.
5. No irregularities were pointed out in conducting enquiry by the Enquiry Officer. It is not a case where no opportunity was given to the petitioner while conducting enquiry. After following the due procedure only, the enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority, who passed the impugned order. Petitioner himself admitted that during his absence without any leave or permission from the competent authority, theft had occurred and it caused loss to the Department. Therefore, on his own admission, Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the Articles of charges framed against the petitioner have been proved. The Court will not interfere when there is some evidence against the delinquent officer. A distinction has to be drawn between total absence of evidence and cases where there is some evidence. If there is some evidence, then the Court or Tribunal in exercise of its judicial review
cannot sit as a Court of appeal and interfere with punishment by reassessing the evidence on its own. It is not a case of no evidence against the delinquent officer. The punishment imposed is proportionate to the proved misconduct. Therefore, after considering all these aspects, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the Original Application and that order needs no interference by this Court.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, in the circumstances without costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
_______________ JUSTICE ANIS JUNE 09, 2014 YVL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.24684 of 2002
DATED: 09.06.2014
YVL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should interfere with the adjudicatory order of the Tribunal dismissing the matter against the petitioner.
Whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner is proportionate to the proved misconduct.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service with consequential benefits.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
B.Sridhar Rao
1st Respondent
2nd Respondent
K.C. Bhanu
Anis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
