Union of India and others ….. Pravakar Mohanty v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 4854 of 2020 Union of India and others ….. Pravakar Mohanty Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. G. Mohanty, Sr. Panel Counsel, Govt. of India Opposite Parties Order No. 03. CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Decision
ORDER 14.03.2023 2. Heard Mr. G. Mohanty, learned Senior Panel Counsel, Govt. of India appearing for the petitioners-Union of India. 3. The Union of India and its functionaries have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 30.09.2019 passed in O.A. No. 260/65/2015 under Annexure-3, by which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack has allowed the application filed by the opposite party. 4. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the opposite party, while working as GDSMD/MC, Telipal B.O. in account with Sajanagarh S.O. under Balasore Postal Division, was put under off duty with effect from 06.11.2007 in contemplation of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him under Rule-12(1) of GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules, 2001. As a consequence thereof, the opposite party filed an appeal on 17.12.2007 before the Superintendent of Post Offices, Balasore Division with a request to reinstate him in service pending disciplinary inquiry. At this point of time, he was issued with a memorandum of charge with a direction to submit written statement of defence, if any, within a stipulated time frame on the basis of article of charge levelled against him. In compliance of the same, the opposite party denied the charges. Consequentially, inquiry was conducted and the Page 1 of 4 inquiry officer submitted his report on 04.09.2011 holding that the opposite party was found guilty of the charges framed against him and, thereby, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as enjoyed of him under Rule-21 of GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules, 2001. Thereafter, the opposite party supplied with a copy of the report of the inquiry officer and in response to which, he submitted a representation on 03.10.2011. But the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of removal of service of the opposite party and further directed that he is not entitled to any financial benefits consequent upon execution of the order of removal from service. Against the said order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, the opposite party preferred appeal on 08.12.2011 before the Superintendent of Post Offices, Balasore Division. But the appellate authority, vide order dated 11.02.2013, rejected the appeal by upholding the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Being aggrieved by the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority, the petitioner approached the tribunal by filing original application with a prayer to quash the charge levelled against him and consequential punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority. The opposite party further sought direction to reinstate him in service along with all service benefits including back wages. 5. The fact leading to filing of the original application filed by the opposite party reveals that one Rameswar Hansdah, who had not been cited as SW in the charge memo, was examined as SW-8 and despite objection of the opposite party while the inquiry officer recorded his evidence, the inquiry officer did not record any reason in allowing the said Hansdah as SW-8. This resulted in debarring the opposite party from examining a vital witness, i.e., the GEQD, whose report was used as a trump card by the inquiry officer, P.O., disciplinary authority and Page 2 of 4 appellate authority to bring home the charges. In addition to the same, it was also contended that introduction and exhibition of the report of GEQD without calling upon the particular incumbent for cross- examination by the opposite party is violative of principles of natural justice, as per the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Ministry of Finance v. S.B. Ramesh, (1998) SCC (L&S) 865. Furthermore, the inquiry officer did not allow production of two vital defence documents and two defence witnesses, which causes prejudice to the opposite party. Thereby, the action of the authority is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. It is further contended that keeping in view the possibility of wrong payment of money order, the Government had enacted Section 47 in Indian Post Office Act, 1898 for recovery of the amount from the wrong payee in case he does not refund the amount. Further, under Section 48 of the said Act, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against any officer or the post office in respect of any wrong payment of a money order. 6. There is no dispute on the basis of the fact that opposite party has made a wrong payment of Rs.1000/- and the same was detected after two years. Therefore, initiation of proceeding against the opposite party because of non-payment of Rs.1000/- to correct person itself clearly indicates that there is no allegation of misappropriation or appropriation of any amount by the opposite party bereft of Rs.1000/- which has been paid wrongly to a person other than the actual payee. As such, the authority has never tried to enquire the matter and examine the person to whom wrong payment has been made, as a witness. But on the wrong premises, the inquiry officer conducted the enquiry without affording opportunity of hearing to the opposite party and without examining the proper witnesses. Rather, on the basis of perfunctory enquiry, suggestion was made by the inquiry officer and the same was accepted by the disciplinary authority without any application of mind. More so, the Page 3 of 4 appellate authority has given a rubber stamp to the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Furthermore, while dealing with the matter though question of limitation was raised before the tribunal, but, considering the reasons which have been noted in paragraph-9 of the judgment, the tribunal condoned the delay and entertained the original application. Thereby, the petitioners are precluded to object the prayer with regard to condonation of delay. Rather, having participated in the proceeding, they are estopped to make such objection before this Court at this point of time. So far as merits of the case is concerned, the tribunal has dealt with the same in paragraphs-11, 12 and 13 of the judgment itself by observing that as to why the disciplinary authority while dealing with the representation of the opposite party did not discuss the impugned punishment order and also it is not understood as to why the inquiry officer did not allow Biswanath Pradhan, the wrong payee to be examined during the course of the inquiry. Thereby, this Court is of the considered view that the tribunal has dealt with the entire issue in proper perspective and, as such, the reasons assigned by the tribunal is well justified. 7. In the above view of the matter, this Court does not find any error in the order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.260/65/2015 so as to cause interference with the same. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Ashok (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Page 4 of 4