Dismissed

Union of India and Ors. v. Kalpana Choudhury

Tripura HC7 Nov 2017WP(C)(CAT)/2/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Writ Appeal and set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's order which had substituted censure or warning for the reduction in pay penalty. The Court held the Tribunal's view that there was no misconduct to be erroneous. The disciplinary authority's order reducing the pay scale by three stages was restored, and pensionary benefits were directed to be released.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Tribunal order set aside; disciplinary authority's penalty order restored; respondents directed to settle and release pensionary benefits within 30 days.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Kalpana Choudhury — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

¶2

WP(C) (CAT) No.02 of 2016

¶3

1. The Union of India,

¶4

represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communication, New Delhi

¶5

2. The Chief Post Master,

¶6

North East Circle, Shillong,

¶7

Shillong – 793 001, Meghalaya

¶8

3. The Director, Postal Services,

¶9

Department of Posts, Agartala Division, Agartala – 799 001, State of Tripura

¶10

…………Petitioners

¶11

- V E R S U S –

¶12

Smt. Kalpana Choudhury, wife of Sri Prabir Ranjan Roy, Joynagar, Lane No.2, Agartala – 799 001, West Tripura

¶13

…………..Respondent

¶14

B E F O R E

¶15

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

¶16

For the petitioners : Mr. Biswanath Majumder, CGC , For the respondent : Mr. B. C. Das, Senior Advocate Mr. B. Banerjee, Advocate

¶17

Date of hearing and delivery : 07.11.2017 of judgment and order

¶18

Whether fit for reporting : No

¶19

Judgment and Order (Oral)

¶20

(S. Talapatra, J)

¶21

This petition seeks judicial review of the judgment and order dated 30.08.2016 delivered in O.A. 041/0000025/2015 by the

¶22

Page 1 of 7

¶23

WP(C) (CAT) No.02 of 2016

¶24

Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, herein after referred to as the CAT in short.

¶25

02. There is no dispute that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent on the following articles of charge under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965:

¶26

ARTICLE - I

¶27

Smt. Kalpana Choudhury while functioning as Sub-Post Master, Battala Bazar Sub-Post office, during the period from 27.10.2010 to 26.05.2011 accepted withdrawal forms in SB-7 from the holders of recurring deposit (RD) Account No.7233595, 7233808, 7233725 and TD account No.135671 on 16.11.2010, 12.01.2011, 13.01.2011, 3003-2011 and credited the maturity values of Rs.36445.00, Rs.58312.00, Rs.73102.00 and Rs.53199.00 in respect of the said RDs and TD on the date 20.11.2010, 18.01.2011, 14.02.2011 and dated 01.04.2011 into a particular savings bank account of Battala Bazar SO bearing account N-79228818 appeared by Sri Shyamal Kanti Deb, GDS Packer, Battala Bazar SO violating the provisions of Rule 31(10)(a) and Rule 31(10)(b) of PO SB Manual Vol-1.

¶28

By the above mentioned Acts, Smt. Kalpana Choudhury, SubPost Master Battala Bazar SO violated the provisions of Rule 3(1)(iii) and Rule 3(2)(i)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.

¶29

ARTICLE - II

¶30

Smt. Kalpana Choudhury, SPM, Battala Bazar SO credited illegally maturity value in respect of Battala Bazar SO. TD account No.135671, RD account No.7233595, 7233753 & maturity valued in respect of monthly income scheme (MIS) account No.12881346, 12881528, 12881527, 12881534, 12881589 & 12881603 to a particular savings Bank account No.79228818 in the name of Sri Shyamal Kanti Deb, GDS Packer Battala Bazar SO and thus failed to comply with the instructions contained in Rule 31(10)(a) and Rule 31(10)(b) of PO SB manual Vol.-1 & instruction of DG Posts New Delhi vide his Memo. No.113-23/2005-SB dated 20-08-2008.

¶31

By the above mentioned Acts, Smt. Kalpana Choudhury, SubPost Master Battala Bazar SO violated the provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii)(iii) and Rule 3(2)(i)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.

¶32

03. The respondent denied the charge as contained in the memorandum dated 15.03.2012 by filing the reply dated 06.04.2012. The respondent has stated that on maturity of the fixed deposits (FD), term deposits (TD) and recurring deposits (RD) of the depositors as referred in the charge they wanted to draw their maturity value

¶33

Page 2 of 7

¶34

WP(C) (CAT) No.02 of 2016

¶35

against the deposits. She had credited the maturity value in the account of one Shyamal Kanti Deb, GDS Packer without authorization from the depositors. After inquiry as carried out in terms of the Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 the inquiry report dated 23.12.2013 was furnished to the disciplinary authority returning the following finding:

¶36

“On the basis of the documentary and oral evidences adduced before me and in view of the reasons given, I hold that the Article of Charge-I, is proved and Article of Charge - II, is proved except in respect of withdrawal of Rs.14,85,000/dated 15.02.2011 in respect of MIS account No.12881528 (ExS3/8).”

¶37

04. Having received the inquiry report dated 23.12.2013 on 20.01.2014 the respondent (the Delinquent Officer) submitted her representation stating, inter alia, that she did not commit any misconduct. The petitioner No.3 being the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the said representation dated 20.01.2014 and passed the order of penalty dated 19.06.2014 by imposing penalty on the respondent of reduction of pay by three stages in the pay band of Rs.9300-3400-GP-4600.

¶38

05. First, the respondent preferred a departmental appeal on 08.08.2014 against the said order of penalty dated 19.06.2014 contending that her acts were circumstantial and not deliberate. She had respect for the rules and procedures. But the appellate authority dismissed the appeal by the order dated 07.11.2014 on affirming the order of penalty passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

¶39

06. The respondent filed the Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging the said inquiry report dated 23.12.2013, the order of penalty dated

¶40

Page 3 of 7

¶41

WP(C) (CAT) No.02 of 2016

¶42

19.06.2014 and the appellate order dated 07.11.2014 on multiple grounds the respondent has prayed for her full pensionary benefits without implementing the order of reduction of stages in the pay scale and release of the increment which was due on July, 2014. The CAT allowed the said application filed by the respondent and set aside the order of penalty by the judgment and order dated 30.08.2016 on observing inter alia:

¶43

“there is no allegation of misconduct against the respondent herein. The discussions, made above, clearly reveal that it was a procedural mistake on the part of the respondent herein committed under compelling circumstances for which the authorities could have issued censure and warning to the respondent. Instead, disproportionate punishment was imposed upon the respondent just before her retirement. Accordingly, punishment imposed upon the respondent is set aside with full consequential benefits. Petitioners are directed to disburse the consequential benefits.”

¶44

07. The petitioners who were the respondents in the OA filed this petition for the judicial review of the said judgment and order dated 30.08.2016 contending that the tribunal has failed to weigh the misconduct which has gravely belied trust when the transfer of fund was caused without depositing those amount to the depositors’ account but to a third party account without any authorization either from the authority or from the depositors. It is a serious misconduct which has not been properly appreciated by the tribunal.

¶45

08. Mr. Biswanath Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the petitioners has argued that the finding as returned by the tribunal cannot be sustained inasmuch as the concern of the tribunal is entirely irrelevant and misplaced and hence unsustainable in law inasmuch as the respondent, the Delinquent Officer had manifestly and admittedly breached the trust as placed on her by the procedural instruction. The

¶46

Page 4 of 7

¶47

WP(C) (CAT) No.02 of 2016

¶48

tribunal did not properly read the inquiry report and the orders of the disciplinary and the appellate authority and returned the finding causing failure of justice. Thus, the appellant has urged to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2016 as passed by the tribunal and restore the order of the disciplinary authority which has been affirmed by the appellate order as stated.

¶49

09. Mr. B. C. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Banerji, learned counsel has strenuously argued that for ease of business the respondent transferred the entire depositor’s maturity value to the third party account and she had no unscrupulous intention to cause loss to the maturity value of the depositors. According to Mr. Das, learned senior counsel there might be deviation from the standard procedure but all deviations are not misconduct. In this case, there is no allegation from the depositors against the respondent nor there is any allegation of actual defalcation. The allegation is leveled also for violation of Rule 31(10)(a) and Rule 31(10)(b) of Post Office SB manual [Vol.-1]. According to the petitioners herein, the conduce of the respondent is unbecoming and is covered by Rule 3(1)(ii)(iii) and Rule 3(2)(i)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. The respondent has not denied the imputation that she transferred the depositors’ maturity money to the account of one Shyamal Kanti Deb, GDS Packer. There had been no complaint but the charges are levelled by the disciplinary authority of its own.

¶50

10. Having appreciated the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties in respect of the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2016, this court is of the view that the concern as expressed by

¶51

Page 5 of 7

¶52

WP(C) (CAT) No.02 of 2016

¶53

the tribunal which has been considered as the prime basis to exculpate the respondent, and to exonerate from the charge, can hardly be sustained particularly when the tribunal has observed at para-10 of the said judgment as followed:

¶54

“Admittedly, applicant has not been charged for any pecuniary loss to the department. The only allegation is that she credited the matured values of money of the investors in a wrong account instead of the personal accounts of the investors. Learned counsel for the applicant forcefully submitted that the investors did not have accounts in their name and demanded the amounts be deposited in the account of Shri Shyamal Kanti Deb, on whom they reposed faith. According to the learned counsel, applicant took advice from her seniors and she was constrained to deposit the amounts in the account of Shri Deb to tackle the infuriated depositors who were mostly illiterate. Learned counsel emphasized that applicant had to do so on good faith under compelling circumstances and due to pressure of works couple with shortage of staff. Learned counsel for the respondents could not refute the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the applicant.”

¶55

11. The finding of the tribunal that there is no allegation of misconduct against the applicant is grossly perverse inasmuch as the purported procedural mistake according to this court exposited a serious misconduct inasmuch as the maturity value of the deposits made by the concerned depositors was transferred without authorization of the depositors to a third party account in gross violation of the well laid procedure as stated above. As such, the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority and as affirmed by the appellate authority did not warrant any interference.

¶56

12. Having held thus, the impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2016 delivered in O.A. 041/0000025/2015 is interfered with and set aside and the order of the disciplinary authority is restored. The pensionary benefit of the respondent if not released as yet, the appellants shall settle the pensionary benefits and release the same

¶57

Page 6 of 7

¶58

WP(C) (CAT) No.02 of 2016

¶59

within a period of 30(thirty) days from the day when they would receive a copy of this order from the respondent, the Applicant in the O.A. 041/0000025/2015.

¶60

In the result this appeal succeeds.

¶61

There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

CHIEF JUSTICE

Moumita

Page 7 of 7

WP(C) (CAT) No.02 of 2016

Union of India and Ors. v. Kalpana Choudhury

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Kalpana Choudhury

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

National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Jharna Sarkar and Anr.

Ratan Debbarma Vs N.B.C.C. Ltd. and Ors.

Ratna Majumder Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Sangeeta Choudhury Vs State of Tripura and Ors.

Nirmal Das Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bhanu Dey and Ors. Vs the State of Tripura