The writ petitioner, who was employed as Junior Assistant on 15.03.1974, was promoted as Assistant in 1976 and as Superintendent in 1997 and thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer on 23.03.2000 and ultimately, he has to retire on 30.10.2009. A charge memo was issued against him under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules on 20.07.2000. The charge, which was framed against him, was that the terminal benefits due to the Government employees were disbursed in violation of the Government Orders by cash instead of cheque or demand draft. The petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation on 09.10.2000. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report holding that charges 1 and 2 as proved while the third charge stood as not proved. Copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner, to which he submitted his explanation and ultimately, the Government has passed the impugned order, imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect from 22.07.2004 in G.O.(2D) No.49, Finance Department, dated 22.07.2004. The petitioner has filed a review to the Government based on G.O.Ms.No.651, Finance Department, dated 11.06.1990, and ultimately, the Government has rejected the said review, against which, the present writ petition is filed.
2. The main contention of the petitioner, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that in respect of the sanction of retirement benefits to the government servants, while the petitioner's role was only endorsing the bill, enabling payment by way of cash instead of demand draft or or cheque, actually, the employees working in the ITI Department, Erode, who have disbursed the amount in cash, misappropriated the amount due to the retired government employees and therefore, the petitioner had no role in the said misappropriation at all. While so, the said ITI employees, who were also charged under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, were imposed a lesser punishment of withholding of increment for one year without cumulative effect. However, in respect of the petitioner, a more harsh punishment has been imposed by withholding of increment for three years with cumulative effect, which, according to the learned counsel, as seen in the grounds of affidavit, is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that the petitioner while working as Superintendent in the District Treasury, Erode, has committed certain procedural lapses, which paved way for the departmental staff of Government ITI, Erode, to swindle the money due to the retired government employees. It was in respect of that incident, three charges were framed against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer held that charges 1 and 2 as proved and the third charge as not proved and ultimately, the Government has passed the impugned order taking note of the seriousness of the situation. It is the specific case of the respondent that on verification, it was found that the retirement benefits due to the government employees were disbursed by cash instead of demand draft or cheque, and in the manner, the employees of the ITI department, Erode, have misappropriated a huge amount to the extent of Rs.3,50,000/- due to three employees, namely, M/s.S.Paulraj, R.Rangasamy and S.Balasubramanian and the amounts were relating to GPF Final Payment and DCRG. It is stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.651, Finance (T&A-1) Department, dated 11.06.1990 and the earlier order in G.O.Ms.No.780, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 08.11.1993, the Government has made it clear that the retirement benefits have to be disbursed only by means of demand draft/Banker's cheque. The petitioner and other staff working in the Office of the District Treasury, Erode, have enabled the payment by cash by making endorsement, which was the basis for the employees of the ITI Department, Erode, to misappropriate the amount. It is also denied that procedure has been violated in considering the case of the petitioner. It is stated that due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner and the other staff working in District Treasury, Erode, it has led to the misappropriation of amount by the employees of the ITI Department and therefore, the initiation of departmental enquiry and the impugned order passed by the Government is appropriate commensurating to the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner.
4. A reference to G.O.Ms.No.651, dated 11.06.1990 shows that the Government even in the year 1990 has given a categoric instruction that in respect of the government employees, the payment of retirement benefits, of course, in that G.O., it was relating to the General Provident Fund amount, shall be paid by means of cheque drawn in favour of the retired government employees (non-self drawing) with immediate effect. In fact, the said Government Order also states that Drawing Officers of the Department shall endorse the bills in favour of the retiring government servants, as in the case of payments of long term advance. The operative portion of the said Government Order, is as follows:
"2. After careful consideration, Government directs that the leave salary on account of encashment of earned leave of the Government servants (non-self drawing) at the time of the retirement on the date of termination of the extension service shall be paid by means of an account payees cheque in favour of the government servant (non -self drawing) with immediate effect. For this purpose, the Drawing Officers of the Department concerned shall endorse the bills in favour of the retiring government servants, as in the case of payments of long term advance."
5. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any specific procedure for payment of pensionary benefits only through demand draft or cheque, the practice followed is payment by way of cash, cannot be countenanced. In fact, the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of the employees working in ITI department, who misappropriated some amount while disbursing the amount by cash, and who were also brought under the disciplinary proceedings, were granted lesser punishment, while the petitioner has been imposed more punishment, is also untenable. First of all, the staff of ITI department belong to other department. It may be true that those persons while disbursing the pensionary benefits by way of cash, have misappropriated as stated above, but, in their department the punishment granted after enquiry was withholding of one year increment without cumulative effect. But, in the present case, it is the conduct of the petitioner in making endorsement, thereby authorising the staff of the ITI department, to pay the amount in cash against the Government Order and therefore, the respondent has taken serious note of the gravity of the situation in respect of the petitioner while imposing punishment of withholding of increment for three years as stated above.
6. I do not see any reason to interfere either on the basis that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate or the punishment imposed on the petitioner can be equated to that of the ITI staff.
Article 14 cannot be invoked for the purpose of enforcing a negative right. Even though the petitioner is not involved in misappropriation, he is the person, who authorised the staff of the other department to encash the amount, which is against the Government Order. The seriousness of the act of the petitioner is taken note of by the Government. More over, the punishment imposed on the petitioner, namely, withholding of three increments with cumulative effect, is not shockingly disproportionate to the act committed by the petitioner. In fact, when a review was filed against the earlier order of the Government dated 22.07.2004, the Government has referred it to Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for its comments. In the comments of the TNPSC dated 14.09.2006, the Service Commission, taking note of the gravity of the situation, has stated that the employees of the ITI department were empowered to pay the amount by cash, thereby misappropriated huge amount due to the retired government employees, because of the endorsement made by the petitioner and others in their office, but for whose endorsement, the misappropriation would have been averted. Inasmuch as the petitioner's endorsement is against the Government Order, as found in the comments communicated to the Government by the TNPSC, the same has to be dealt with in accordance with the Government Order and accordingly, it was recommended for the impugned action.
7. In such view of the matter, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the respondent. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
ATR To The Secretary to Govt.
State of Tamil Nadu Finance Department Secretariat, Chennai 9