Union Of India & Ors. v. Gokul Chand Meena & Anr.

1. Instant petition is directed against order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dt.30/05/2006.

2. The brief facts of the case relevant for our consideration are that the respondent was posted as Assistant Postmaster, Gangapur Head Post Office and another incumbent Madan Lal Meena was working as Postmaster, Gangapur Head Office. Madan Lal Meena applied for one day's leave on 02/03/2001 which was sanctioned by the competent authority and he handed over charge of Postmaster to the respondent in the afternoon of 01/03/2001 and indisputably, Madan Lal Meena assumed duty, after availing casual leave, on 03/03/2001 and charge of the Postmaster was handed over by the respondent to Madan Lal Meena in the forenoon of 03/03/2001.

3. It can be noticed that when Madan Lal Meena proceeded on one days' casual leave, there was cash balance of Rs. 49,61,178/- as on 01/03/2001. The respondent could remit only Rs. 16 lacs on 02/03/2001 to the Bank and thus the closing balance on 02/03/2001, remained in hand after remittance of Rs. 16 lacs, was Rs. 27,04,172/- and it was duty of the regular Postmaster (Madan Lal Meena) to deposit the surplus amount in Bank when he took over charge of the Post Master in the forenoon of 03/03/2001 after availing one day's causal leave.

4. It was admitted before the Tribunal that in the night of 4th May, 2001, a theft took place in Gangapur Head Office in which the thieves took away Rs. 16,04,580/- and accordingly a charge-sheet was issued to the respondent u/R.16 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 and after holding him guilty he was punished vide order dt.27/11/2001 with the punishment of recovery of Rs. 50,000/- and also penalty of reduction of pay by two stages from Rs. 7100/- to Rs. 6800/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 5000-150-8000 for a period of one year with effect from 01/12/2001 and it was further ordered that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and on the expiry of this period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

5. However, on an appeal being preferred by him, the appellate authority, vide order dt. 21/08/2002, while upholding guilt modified the penalty of recovery of Rs. 50,000/- & altered the punishment of reduction of pay of the respondent by two stages from Rs. 7100/- to Rs. 6800/- in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 for a period of one year with direction that he will not earn increments during the period of reduction and reduction will not have postponing effect on future increment of pay to that of ‘Censure’.

6. The order of penalty came to be challenged by the respondent in OA before the Tribunal.

7. The Tribunal, after reply came to be filed by the Union of India, examined the whole records of the disciplinary enquiry and arrived to a conclusion that the respondent became an scapegoat and the person, responsible in the whole of the episode, was Madan Lal Meena who was working as Postmaster, Gangapur Head Office and as he was on casual leave for a day on 02/03/2001, the present respondent took over the charge and Madan Lal Meena resumed the charge, after availing one day's casual leave, on 03/03/2001 in the forenoon and it was Madan Lal Meena who was responsible and not the respondent and in the facts and circumstances, the vary allegation upon the respondent, he holding the charge of Post Master for one day, nowhere could be supported by any tangible evidence on record and after review of record of enquiry, the Tribunal finally arrived to a conclusion that the charge-sheet and the penalty inflicted upon the respondents, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, was not legally sustainable in law and accordingly quashed & set aside the order of punishment.

8. After hearing counsel for the parties, we do find that the respondent became an scapegoat and he had charge of the Post Master for one day because the regular Postmaster Madan Lal Meena was on casual leave for 02/03/2001 and if the cash was not deposited, it was Madan Lal Meena who was responsible and not the respondent and no disciplinary enquiry was initiated against Madan Lal Meena, who was the main culprit and this what the ld. Tribunal observed in its order impugned and we find that there is no tangible evidence on record which could support the finding arrived at by the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority and so also the appellate authority in holding the present respondent guilty and inflicting penalty upon him under the Rules of 1965 and we do not find any error being committed by the ld. Tribunal in passing the order impugned which may call for interference of this Court u/Art. 227 of the Constitution.

9. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.