IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.3141 OF 2018 (S-CAT) BETWEEN:
SRI NAGARAJ (UNDER PUT OFF DUTY) SON OF LATE DODDA ERANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS GRAMIN DAK SEVAK BRANCH POSTMASTER ATHANUR BRANCH POST OFFICE A/W KALMALA SUB POST OFFICE KALMALA – 584 136.
RAICHUR DISTRICT RESIDING AT ATHANUR VILLAGE MANVI TALUK RAICHUR DISTRICT – 584 136.
(BY SRI: FAYAZ SAB B.G., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN GENERAL POST OFFICE RAJBHAVAN ROAD ... PETITIONER BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES NORTH KARNATAKA REGION DHARWAD - 580 001.
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES RAICHUR DIVISION RAICHUR - 584 102.
4. INQUIRY OFFICER AND ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS(HQ) OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, RAICHUR DIVISION RAICHUR - 584 102.
5. THE POST MASTER RAICHUR HEAD POST OFFICE RAICHUR - 584 101. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2017 PASSED IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN O.A. NO. 170 / 00798/ 2016 BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AT ANNEX-B AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, B.M. SHYAM PRASAD J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This writ petition is filed by the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (for short, 'Tribunal") in Original Application No. 170/00798/2016. The petitioner has filed this application impugning the disciplinary authority's removal order dated 22.6.2015 as well as the appellate authority’s affirming order dated 4.5.2016. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 17.10.2017 has dismissed the petitioner's application.
2. The petitioner was working as Gramin Dhak Sevak Branch Post Master at Athanur Branch Post Office when the Assistant Superintendent of Posts visited the office for annual inspection. During such inspection, it was found that the petitioner had made entries of different deposits of substantial amounts in the pass book of Smt.Nagamma, wife of Sri Eshwarappa, the account holder of Savings Bank Account No.621950 and impressed date stamp as well as signed such entries in the pass book, without making corresponding entries in the SB A/c Journal and other records. It was also found that the petitioner had not incorporated several withdrawal transactions by the said account holder. As such, Memo dated 24.1.2011, with Articles of Charge, was issued to the petitioner imputing that the petitioner had misappropriated funds and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, and thus the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Rule 21 of the Gramin Dhak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001. The petitioner submitted his defence on 8.2.2011 denying the charges. An enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the Articles of Charge. The enquiry officer, who was substituted for the enquiry officer appointed initially as he was transferred, submitted his report dated 21.1.2015 holding that the Articles of Charge as against the petitioner was proved. The petitioner, upon receipt of second notice, submitted his representation against such report on 5.3.2015. The disciplinary authority, after considering the material on record, the enquiry report and the petitioner’s reply, found that the petitioner was guilty of financial demeanor and manipulation of records to camouflage such financial misdemeanor, and therefore passed the order dated 22.6.2015 for dismissal of the petitioner from engagement with immediate effect. The petitioner’s appeal as against such order was considered by the Appellate Authority, but by its order dated 4.5.2016 confirmed the dismissal order dated 22.6.2015.
3. The petitioner’s challenge to these two orders dated 22.6.2015 and 4.5.2016 was essentially on two counts. Firstly, that the account holder Smt.Nagamma during the enquiry, denied the statement allegedly made at the time of the investigation, and similarly her brother-in-law Sri Erappa, who had transcribed her statement during the investigation, also denied the same. These circumstances showed that the charge against the petitioner was ill-founded, but both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority had failed to consider the same. Secondly, the punishment of removal from service with immediate effect, in the facts and circumstances of case, was disproportionate and shocking.
4. The Tribunal found that the disciplinary and the appellate authorities had considered the statement made by the account holder Smt. Nagamma and her brother-in-law Sri Eranna in arriving at the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner was established. The Tribunal specifically recorded that the account holder Smt.Nagamma had only stated that she did not remember giving her statement as transcribed by her brother-in-law as against an absolute denial. The account holder and her brother-in-law, the scribe of the statement, are closely related to the petitioner and therefore, it was more than probable that she could have lied to help the petitioner. Further, the department was able to establish the manipulation of the records. The petitioner ought to have examined appropriate persons if he wanted to succeed in establishing his contention that the thumb impression of the account holder and Eranna were manipulated and not obtained as contended by the authorities. The tribunal, in the aforesaid circumstances, did not find it appropriate to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of its powers of judicial review.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued against the impugned orders, including the Tribunal’s order reiterating the very contentions urged before the Tribunal. It is trite, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, that High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226, or under article 227, of the Constitution of India, will examine limited questions such as whether the enquiry is held by the competent authority, whether enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed, whether there is any violation of the principles of natural justice, whether the disciplinary authority has erroneously failed to admit the admissible/material evidence and whether the conclusions are based on inadmissible evidence, but the High Court will not re-appreciate the evidence, or go into the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence. In the present case, both the authorities have, upon appreciation of material on record, concluded that the evidence on record was sufficient to establish the petitioner's culpability. The Tribunal has also concluded that the petitioner’s case that the statements of the account holder and the scribe are manipulated is on the ground that the account holder and the scribe who recorded her statement during the investigation, have not supported such statement during the enquiry cannot be accepted in view of the admitted relationship between the petitioner and the account holder/the scribe. Further, on the question of proportionate punishment, it is equally settled that the writ courts will not interfere unless the punishment shocks its judicial conscience. The allegations against the petitioner are multiple acts of entering deposits and withdrawals in the pass book of an account holder without corresponding entries in the concerned journals and committing acts of misappropriation of funds with manipulation of records to camouflage such misappropriation involving failure to maintain integrity and devotion to duty as required under the Rules. Therefore, the penalty of dismissal from service cannot be termed as that which shocks the judicial conscience of this court. Under these circumstances, no interference is called for with the impugned orders. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE nv