Hon'ble Virendra Kumar-II,J.
Heard Sri Vijay Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.
In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 17.9.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow, in Original Application No.317 of 2008 whereby the Original Application preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal dated 5.6.2008 has been rejected. The petitioner inter-alia has also challenged the order dated 7th November, 2014 whereby the Review Application preferred by the petitioner has also been rejected including the order of dismissal dated 5.6.2008.
Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Postal Assistant at Allahabad and while he was working as Sub-Post Master, Post Office Manas Nagar, Lucknow, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.03.2001 by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Lucknow Division, Lucknow (opposite party no.4) in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 10 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short "1965 Rules"). Thereafter, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 20.04.2001 with the allegations that while he was working as Sub-Postmaster, Post Office Manas Nagar, Lucknow, he encashed six National Saving Certificates (in short "NSC") of Rs.5000/- each without obtaining necessary verification of certificates and as such, the Postal Department had suffered a loss of Rs.20,150/-. The petitioner tendered reply to the charge-sheet denying the allegations levelled against him.
It has further been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the meantime, the suspension order was revoked vide order dated 19.07.2001 but the inquiry remained continued. Ultimately, the Inquiry Officer submitted its report on 30.09.2004 and the charges were found proved. After due procedure, the Disciplinary Authority passed the dismissal order dismissing the petitioner from service on 24.06.2005.
Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Revision before the Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow (opposite party no.2), which was also dismissed vide order dated 05.06.2008.
Feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 24.06.2005, 14.08.2006 and 05.06.2008, the petitioner preferred an Original Application No.317 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the said orders. The Central Administrative Tribunal, vide order dated 17.09.2014 dismissed the Original Application of the petitioner as well as the Review Application.
It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that both the charges levelled against the petitioner arises out of one incident but both the charges are contrary to each other. The first charge levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner while working as Sub-Postmaster, Manas Nagar Post Office, Lucknow, has encashed two six years NSCs each for denomination of Rs.5000/- on 19.01.2001 without obtaining necessary verification of certificates under Rule 23(1) of the PO SB Man. Vol-II and thereby committed a grave misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming for a Government servant as required under Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) and (iii) of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1964 whereas the second charge is that the petitioner has made payment of two NSCs for denomination of Rs.5000/- each without observing the procedure prescribed under Rule 23(2) of the PO SB Man. Vol.-II resulting in loss to the tune of Rs.20,150/-.
It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal while dismissing the original application recorded certain factual findings contrary to the record and has further failed to examine that no definite finding has been recorded by the Inquiry Officer and only on the basis of conjectures and surmises the charges has been found . Further, the learned Tribunal without application of mind and without appreciating the records,has recorded findings which are wholly erroneous and perverse.
It has also been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal in support of his case has not been taken into consideration and only on the basis of its erroneous belief which is contrary to the record, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application of the petitioner.
Refuting the allegations of the petitioner, learned Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the petitioner while working as Sub-Postmaster, Manas Nagar Post Office, Lucknow on 19.01.2001 encashed six years National Savings Certificates each for denomination of Rs.5000/- issued from Nagar Mahapalika Post Office, Varanasi on 11.06.1994 and 11.07.1994 under Registration No.892 and 900. NSCs belonging to Surendra Chandra and Smt. Sushma Sharma were encashed by the petitioner without obtaining necessary certification from the office which has issued the same. Thus, the petitioner made payment of the above NSCs without following the procedure contained in Rule 23(1) and (2) of Post Office SB Manual Vol.-II resulting a loss of Rs.20150/- to the Postal Department.
It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that it has wrongly been stated by the petitioner that he was not provided the documents as sought for by him whereas all relevant documents were supplied to the petitioner and the inquiry was conducted as per Rules in which the petitioner was found guilty, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that there was no illegality in holding the inquiry and extending opportunity to the petitioner as such the averment made by the petitioner is totally incorrect.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgment, it is amply clear that the Tribunal has dealt all the pleas which have been raised here. A perusal of the record shows that holder of the NSC's had lodged an FIR on 19.1.2001 at PS Krishna Nagar, Lucknow, and also gave application to Senior Post Master, Lucknow, Chowk on 20.1.2001 reporting loss/misplacement of NSC's. The Inquiry Officer in its report had observed that the holder of the aforesaid NSCs had brought the misplacement of NSCs to the notice of the charged officer on 6.1.2001. Therefore, the charged officer was aware about loss/misplacement of NSCs in question, even then he did not take proper identification at the time of encashment. During the course of inquiry, the petitioner had disputed of making entries in his own handwriting but during cross-examination, the petitioner had admitted the same to be in his own handwriting. In these circumstances, the charges were found proved by the Inquiry Officer. The Appellate Authority had not found any infirmity in the order of dismissal and while passing the order had observed that during oral inquiry, the petitioner had admitted that loss of certificates was brought to his notice on 6.1.2001 and that he was familiar with the Investor. All these facts were considered by the Tribunal and thereafter it reached to the conclusion that there is no defect in the order of dismissal.
It is pertinent to add that it has been asserted on behalf of the petitioner that departmental proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice as necessary papers were not supplied and has relied upon various case law to assert that as there are defect in the inquiry proceedings, it has vitiated the order of dismissal and other impugned orders. In this regard, we would like to mention that the Tribunal has observed that alongwith the charge sheet, the list of documents and witnesses is also mentioned. The Inquiry Officer conducted the detailed inquiry wherein, the Inquiry Officer has given the date of proceedings including the examination of documents and witnesses. Moreover, there is no assertion of the petitioner before the Tribunal that non supply of the particular document has caused serious prejudice to him. In these circumstances, the case laws relied upon by the petitioner are of no avail to him.
Needless to mention here that the petitioner was holding a post of trust and the person guilty of breach of trust is to be dealt with iron hand. The loss of confidence occupies the primary factor and not the amount of money and sympathy and generosity cannot be a factor, which is impermissible in law in such matters. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principle, the Tribunal held that the petitioner was holding a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirement of functioning. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the Original Application.
It may be noted that after dismissal of the Original Application, the petitioner filed a Review Application pleading that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that there was no loss to the department since it was a case of encashment of NSC and money was not of postal department. The Tribunal rejected the Application on the ground that all these facts have already been considered while deciding the Original Application. Moreover the Tribunal has no power to review its judgment if there is no error apparent on the face of record. An attempt to re-agitate the issue is not permissible under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
For the reasons aforesaid, we find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgments and the writ petition is hereby dismissed.