CWP No. 2731-CAT of 2010 v. Union of India & Ors.

Judgment

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant petition is directed against order dated

30.4.2008 (P-4), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner for setting aside order dated 30.11.2004 (A-1/1), dismissing the petitioner from service. The subsequent order passed by the Appellate Authority, dated 23.9.2005

(A-1), upholding the order of dismissal, was also challenged before the Tribunal, which has been upheld. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner was charge C.W.P. No. 2731-CAT of 2010 2 sheeted on 12.12.2003 (A-5) and regular departmental inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’) was initiated. According to the imputation of charges the petitioner was working as System Manager V SAT Ludhiana Head Office during the period

14.10.1992 to 31.7.1998 attempted to defraud the Department of Post and Telegraph for a sum of Rs. 1,48,326/- by preparing a bogus print out of Chennai Corporate Money Order No. 0668, dated 4.5.1998. On 7.5.1998, he altered the original amount of Rs. 1,48,326/- to Rs. 44,31,370/- by making an easy access into the system and altered the date of booking from 4.5.1998 to 4.6.1998 in ink on the third copy to prepare the bogus CMO. The allegation was that he tampered with and mishandled the V-SAT system and also forged the date of booking on the duplicate CMO No. 0668. Thereby he failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and violated the provisions of Rule 3(i)(i), 3(I)(ii) and 3(I)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. An inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Rules was held by Shri Amarjit Singh Sekhon, ASP Khanna Sub Division and report of inquiry was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 19.8.2004 (A-9). On the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the finding of fact recorded is that all the charges framed against the petitioner stood proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, namely, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ludhiana City Division, Ludhiana, forwarded a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner, who duly entered his reply. C.W.P. No. 2731-CAT of 2010 3 After considering the reply, a detailed order was passed on

30.11.2004 (A-1/1). The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices- respondent No. 3 again concluded that sufficient oral and documentary evidence has been produced during the inquiry to prove the charges leveled against the official. In para 9, the following conclusion has been recorded:- “9. In view of my detailed findings and observation in the preceding paras, I have reached the conclusion that charges leveled against the official have been fully proved. The official resorted to tampering and mishandling of the VSAT system and forgery to give effect to his malintention to defraud the Department of Rs. 44,31,370/- (Rupees forty four Lacs Thirty one thousands three hundred and seventy). This shows that the official is a person of fraudulent integrity and doubtful motives and I am of the firm view that the official is not fit to be retained in service. Therefore, I Manisha Bansal, Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Ludhiana City Division Ludhiana, in exercise the power conferred vide Rule-12(2)(a) of CCS(CCA) Rules-1965 order that the official be dismissed from service with immediate effect.” The appeal against the aforesaid order failed on

23.9.2005 (A-1), vide an order passed by the Appellate Authority- C.W.P. No. 2731-CAT of 2010 4 Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Sector 17, Chandigarh. The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has dismissed the application of the petitioner by observing as under:- “16. We have considered the case carefully and perused the documents placed on record. In so far as the factum of an attempt having been made to defraud the Postal department by making access to the V- SAT system and altering the original amount of Rs. 1,48,326/- to Rs. 44,31,370/- is concerned, the same is not disputed. Since the applicant had been working as System Manager and was well conversant with the V-SAT system, apparently, needle of suspicion was pointed at him and he was ultimately arrested. In fact, by his own statement, he has admitted the guilt. The statement that he was coerced or pressurized to make the confessional statement appears to be an after thought. In any case, an inquiry has been held against him after issuing the charge sheet, wherein he was afforded full opportunity to defend himself.

17. In the course of its judicial review, court/Tribunal is not expected to reappraise the evidence. The disciplinary/appellate authorities are the best judge to evaluate and come to a conclusion. In any case C.W.P. No. 2731-CAT of 2010 5 it is not a case of no evidence at all. The court is to see whether the concerned departmental authorities have followed the due process of law while passing the impugned orders and whether the delinquent employee has been given full opportunity to put his side of the case. The court is not supposed to sit in appeal over the decisions of the disciplinary/appellate/revisional authorities, interfere with and substitute the findings arrived at by them by substituting the same with its own findings. This has been the view taken by the apex court in catena of decisions, …….” We have heard learned counsel at a considerable length and are of the view that once no procedural lapse has been pointed out, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on evidence and the charges concerning attempting forgery, fraud and tampering have been established, then there cannot be any room for the Tribunal to interfere in the order of dismissal. The Tribunal is not a Court of Appeal over and above the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out either any violation of the principles of natural justice nor any statutory rules warranting a conclusion that the petitioner has not been treated fairly. Once the findings of fact are well based and the procedural requirements contemplated by the Rules have been complied with then the quantum of punishment cannot be interfered with, as has been rightly held by the Tribunal. C.W.P. No. 2731-CAT of 2010 6 We are not impressed with the argument that criminal case is still pending and whenever the matter is decided by the criminal court, the order of dismissal is liable to be reviewed. It is well settled that inquiry proceedings and criminal proceedings could be conducted simultaneously. The standard of proof in both the proceedings is entirely different. There is no dearth of authorities for the proposition that unless the facts are complicated and some legal acumen is required there is no bar for continuation of disciplinary as well as criminal proceedings. In NOIDA Enterprises Association v. NOIDA, 2007 (2) RSJ 504, it has been held that standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is not the same as required to prove a criminal charge. Even if there is an acquittal in criminal proceedings, the same does not bar the departmental proceedings. In this case, the decision of the Government in deciding not to continue with the departmental proceedings after acquittal in the criminal charge was held untenable and quashed. The conceptual difference between departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings as has been highlighted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in several cases which were also referred to in the case of NOIDA Enterprises (supra) and in this regard reference was made to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas, (2004) 7 SCC 442; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry, (2005) 10 SCC 471; and Uttaranchal Road Transport Corpn. v. Mansaram Nainwal, (2006) 6 SCC 366. The position in law relating to acquittal in criminal case, its effect on the departmental proceedings and C.W.P. No. 2731-CAT of 2010 7 reinstatement in service has been dealt with by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Bihari Lal Sidhana, (1997) 4 SCC 385. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited, (1999) 2 SCT 660, it is again stated that the effect of the acquittal in a criminal case on the departmental proceedings would depend upon the fact situation in each case. Therefore, we reject the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel. For the reasons aforementioned, we find no ground worthy for admission of the instant petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE February 17, 2010 Pkapoor