Jatinder Singh Bhatia v. Union Of India

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J):-

1. In acceptance of a confessional statement made by the applicant, that the Inquiry Officer after finding, indicted him. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the purported confessional statement was the outcome of a duress which was prevalent at the relevant point of time on account of a threat held to him by the Inspector that he shall have to face the music in the time to came in case he refrained from confessing attributed act.

2. The applicant, was a Conductor in the employment of the respondents, was indicted with a charge of having misappropriated certain amount for which he did not issue the tickets indicating number of passengers who were noticed by the checking staff while they were in the process of alighting from the vehicle, in which the applicant was posted as a Conductor.

3. It was indicated by the learned counsel for the applicant during the course of the hearing, that the applicant is a matriculate. The applicant had concededly put in about more than 18 years of service as a Conductor. We are accordingly, reluctant to accept the plea that the confessional statement came to be made under duress.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant would, then wants us, to invalid the impugned findings of the indictment by arguing that the checking staff did not adhere to the procedural requirement of recording the statement of all passengers who were found to have travelled, ticket less or before being noticed by the checking staff.

5. In view of the fact that the applicant made a confessional statement at the very opening of the inquiry, the Inquiring Authority was fully justified in placing reliance thereof and refraining from examining the aspect pertaining to the non-observance of the words Procedural Requirements. In fact, there is no occasion for the Inquiring Authority to have gone into that aspect at all in view of the confessional statement made by the applicant.

6. We would, accordingly, hold that there is no infirmity in the finding of the indictment recorded by the Inquiring Authority in the light of the view which had obtained; we also do not find any infirmity in the order granted by the Disciplinary Authority on point of imposition of penalty of censure on the applicant. However, the order granted by the Disciplinary Authority (restricting the payment for the suspension period to the subsistence allowance) is not sustained in view of its own instructions to the fact that if an employee proceeded against any disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for major punishment is awarded minor punishment,  he is to be given full pay and allowances for the suspension period. The relevant administrative instructions containing in letter dated 23.3.1990 are quoted in the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1970 Vol. I, Part-I.

7. Our attention has not been invited to the contrary which could persuade us to refrain from invalidating the orders granted by the Competent Authority in restricting the payment made to the applicant for suspension period to the subsistence allowance.

8. The O.A. shall stand disposed of accordingly. While the penalty of censure imposed upon the applicant is upheld; his entitlement to the grant of full pay and allowances for suspension period is upheld. The disbursement of the relevant monetary benefits must come about within one month from the date a copy of this order is presented in the office of the Competent Authority. (JUSTICE S.D. ANAND) MEMBER(J) (RANBIR SINGH) MEMBER(A) Dated: 24.09. 2012 `SK (OA No. 343-CH-2011)