Shri R.C. Pandey v. Union of India

During inquiry Shri M.C. Suyal died in 2005.

4. Petitioner has pleaded that the Departmental Authorities did not issue chargesheet to (i) Shri K.N. Pandey, the concerned Deputy Post Master, Haldwani during whose term, the fraud was committed, (ii) Shri D.N. Belwal, In-charge (SBCO) and (iii) Shri Sangam Lal, Deputy Post Master and they were allowed to retire and no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them. A chargesheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued against petitioner the Senior Superintendant of Post Offices, Nainital vide memo dated

29.11.2003 for violation of certain codified department rules.

5. The Article of charges are reproduced as hereunder:- “Statement of articles of charges framed against shri R.C. Pandey, PA SBCO Haldwani HO at present under suspension Article-1: That the said shri R.C.Pandey, while working and discharging the duties of PA SBCO Haldwani H.O. during the period w.e.f. 8.5.01 to 31.1.02., 11.2.02 to 13.11.02 and 28.11.02 to 18.1.03 it was noticed that shri MC Suyal RD/NSC discharge counter Assistant Haldwani HO made a forged withdrawal of Rs 41,670/- on 4.1.2001 from Haldwani HO RD account No 60948, but said shri RC Pandey failed to carry out the checking of aforesaid forged withdrawal, which facilitated said shri MC Suyal to commit huge fraud. Thus he violated the provision of Rule 58 r/w Rule 34 and 11 of Postal Manual of SB control Pairing and internal check organization. Third edition (corrected up to 1.12.1985). Had he exercised the above checks properly, the fraud committed by said shri MC Suyal could have been detected earlier and loss sustained by the Govt. would have certainly be averted. Therefore, it is alleged that the said shri RC Pandey by his above acts and deeds not only violated the provisions of aforesaid rules, but also exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and thereby also violated the provisions of Rule 3(1) (ii) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article 2: That the said shri R C Pandey, while working and discharging the duties of PA SBCO Haldwani HO during the period w.e.f. 8.5.01 to 31.1.02, 11.02.02 to 13.11.02 and 28.11.02 to 18.1.03, it was noticed that shri MC Suyal RD/NSC discharge counter assistant forged withdrawal of Rs Haldwani HO made a 83.340.00 on 23.3.2001 from Haldwani HO RD a/c No. 62364, but said shri R.C. Pandey failed to check the above forged withdrawal properly which facilitated said fraud amounting Rs shri MC Suyal to commit 83,340.00. Thus he violated the provisions of Rule 58 r/w rule 34 and 11 of Postal manual of SB control pairing and Internal check organization third edition (Corrected up to 1.12.1985). Had he exercised the above checks properly, the fraud committed by said shri MC Suyal could have been detected earlier and loss sustained by the Govt. would have certainly be averted. Therefore, it is alleged that the said shri RC Pandey by his above acts & deeds not only violated the provisions of aforesaid Rules, but also exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and thereby also violated the provisions of Rule 3(1) (ii) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article 3:-That the said RC Pandey, while working and discharging the duties of PA SBCO Haldwani HO during the period w.e.f. 8.5.01 to 31.1.02, 11.2.02 to 13.11.02 and 28.11.02 to 18.1.03. it was noticed that shri MC Suyal RD/NSC discharge counter assistant Haldwani HO made a forged withdrawal of Rs 41,670.00 on 5.1.2001 from Haldwani HO RD account No 60981. Further it was also noticed that the withdrawal form dated 5.1.2001 for Rs 41,670.00 was reflected in the voucher checking register but the same was not found available in SBCO Haldwani HO during the course of investation. Moreover it was not found noted in the will follow register. Thus it is evident that the SB-7 pertaining to Haldwani HO RD account No 60981 dated 5.1.2001 for Rs 41.670.00 was later on removed from the record of SBCO Haldwani HO by said shri RC Pandey, which facilitated said shri MC Suyal to commit a huge fraud. Thus he violated the provisions of Rule 29, Rule 58 r/w Rule 34 and 11 of Postal Manual of SB Control Pairing and internal check organisation, third edition (Corrected up to 1.12.1985). Had he exercised the above checks properly the fraud could have been detected earlier and loss sustained by the Govt. would have certainly be averted. Therefore, it is alleged that the said shri RC Pandey by his above acts and deeds not only violated the provisions of aforesaid rules, but also exhibited lack of integrity/devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and thereby also violated the provisions of Rule 3 (1) (i) (ii) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules. 1964. Article 4: That the said shri RC Pandey, while working and discharging the duties of PA SBCO Haldwani HO during the period w.e.f. 8.5.01 to 31.1.02, 11.2.02 to 13.11.02 and 28.11.02 to 18.1.03, it was noticed that shri MC Suyal RD/NSC discharge counter assistant Haldwani HO made forged withdrawal of Rs 16668.00 on 23.2.2001 and again Rs 16668.00 on 17.3.2001 from Haldwani HO RD account No 62187. As per 100% voucher checking register, the vouchers of this account were checked by shri RC Pandey PA SBCO Haldwani HO on 9.10.2001 and 10.11.2001 respectively, but he Failed to detect the above irregular payments and as such he facilitated said shri MC Suyal to commit fraud amounting to Rs 84,51,093.00 from RD accounts. Thus he violated the provisions of Rule 58 r/w Rule 34 and 11 of Postal Man. Of SB Control Pairing and internal Check Organisation, third edition (Corrected up to 1.12.1985). Had he exercised the above checks properly, the fraud committed by said shri MC Suyal could have been detected earlier and loss sustained by the Govt. would have certainly be averted. Therefore, it is alleged that the said shri RC Pandey by his above acts and deeds not only violated the provisions of said rules, but also exhibited lack of integrity devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and thereby also violated the provisions of Rule 3(1) (i) (ii) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 Article 5:-That the said shri RC Pandey, while working and discharging the duties of PA SBCO Haldwani HO during the period w.e.f. 8.5.01 to 31.1.02, 11.2.02 to 13.11.02 and 28.11.02 to 18.1.03, it was noticed that the many warrant of payments were shown as "will follow", while no such remark has been noted in LOTS by the RD counter PA/Dy PM Haldwani HO: - In most of, the payment cases the payment was made on maturity of RD accounts, but these actual warrant of payments were used to replace the bogus warrant of payments, which were kept on record in SBCO Haldwani HO on earlier dates. The above vouchers were shown W/F irregularly. As a matter of fact there is no justification to show the vouchers pertaining to HO as WF. Further he failed to bring this irregularity to the notice of PM Haldwani HO divisional Head and AO (ICO) concerned within stipulated period. Thus the said shri RC Pandey facilitated shri MC Suyal to commit fraud amounting to Rs 84,51,093.00 and violated the provisions of Rule 4 of Postal manual of SB control. pairing and internal check organisation, third edition (corrected up to 1.12.1985), Had he exercised the above checks properly, the fraud committed by said shri MC Suyal could have been detected earlier and loss sustain by the Govt. would have certainly be averted. Therefore, it is alleged that the said shri RC Pandey by his above acts and deeds not only violated the provisions of said rules, but also exhibited lack of integrity devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and thereby also violated the provisions of Rule 3(1) (i) (ii) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article 6: That the said shri RC Pandey, while working and discharging the duties of PA SBCO Haldwani HO during the period w.e.f. 8.5.01 to 31.1.02, 11.2.02 to 13.11.02 & 28.11.02 to 18.1.03 failed to note the objections in the objection register maintained in SBCO Haldwani HO pertaining to RD branch of Haldwani HO properly. All the objections are fake & baseless. As such said shri RC Pandey violated the provisions of Rule 13 of Postal Manual of SB control pairing and internal check organisation, third edition (Corrected up to 1.12.1985). Had he exercised the above checks properly, the fraud committed by said shri MC Suyal could have been detected earlier and loss sustained by the Govt. would have certainly be averted. Therefore, it is alleged that the said shri RC Pandey by his above acts and deeds not only violated the provisions of said rules, but also exhibited lack of integrity /devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and thereby also violated the provisions of Rule 3(1) (i) (ii) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

6. Petitioner submitted his chargesheet on 09.12.2003 denying all the charges. The Inquiry Officer, after inquiry, submitted his inquiry report on 11.08.2006, whereby, charges nos. 1, 2 and 4 were proved while charge no. 5 was partially proved against the petitioner. Charges nos. 3 and 6 were not proved against the petitioner.

7. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 10.11.2006 issued show cause notice to the petitioner and granted time to submit his reply. Petitioner submitted his reply to the inquiry report on 28.12.2006 and Disciplinary Authority without taking consideration the reply of the petitioner passed an order of dismissal dated 18.05.2007 of the petitioner from service.

8. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Chief Post Master General, Uttarakhand Circle, Dehradun, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 26.03.2008.

9. Petitioner filed O.A. No. 473 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’). The Tribunal after exchange of pleadings, disposed of the said O.A. vide order dated 17.06.2015 and the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the respondents to decide petitioner’s case afresh in view of the findings given by the Tribunal. Paragraph 9 of the Tribunals order dated

17.06.2015 is reproduced hereinbelow:- “9. In the circumstances, without interfering with the impugned order, we remit back the matter to the appellate authority to revisit its order keeping in view the fact that Sri J.P. Joshi who committed same misconduct as alleged against the applicant in Article 5 of the Charge is inflicted with lesser punishment and the amount mentioned in Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the charges had been withdrawn by Sri M.C. Suyal before the applicant joined the position in which he was supposed to check the withdrawals. The appellate authority would also keep in view the plea raised by the applicant in the present O.A. i.e. certain other employees are lighter punishments. The appellate inflicted authority will pass the order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

10. Respondent no. 2 vide order dated 30.11.2015 passed a routine and cyclostyle order ignoring the directions of the Tribunal. The operative part of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereinbelow:- “The case of ex-employee has been re- examined light of omissions and commissions committed by him. The plea of ex- employee that the other offenders in the case have not been given severe punishment, does not reduce the quantum of mistakes committed by him. Therefore, his petition is hereby rejected and his punishment of dismissal from service is allowed to continue. Reference is being made to the Directorate to review the punishment of those employees in whose cases it has been alleged that they have not been given severe punishment commensurate to their omissions & commission. ORDER I, Udai Krishna, Chief Postmaster General, Uttarakhand Circle, therefore after carefully examining the facts/records of the case, reject the petition of Shri R.C. Pandey.”

11. The petitioner again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 30 of 2016, which was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 16.05.2016 and the Tribunal quashed the order dated 30.11.2015 and directed the respondents to reconsider the entire case and pass a well reasoned and speaking order in the light of observation made in its earlier order dated 17.06.2015. Operative part of the judgment dated 16.05.2016 is extracted hereinbelow:- “4. A simple perusal of the direction passed in O.A No. 473/09 and the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2 would reveal that the impugned order dated 30.11.2015 is neither speaking nor a reasoned order. It does not address the plea raised by the applicant. Since the applicant had raised the issue of other employees involved in the episode of embezzlement of government money given lighter punishment, it would have been appropriate for the respondents to record a comparative analysis of the role, responsibility, accountability and punishment ultimately awarded to each of them and justify the punishments awarded to the applicant. Nothing of this nature has been done while passing the impugned order in compliance of the order dated 17.06.2015 passed in O.A No. 473/09.

5. We are of the view that the respondents ought to have been more diligent and specific in addressing the issues raised by the applicant and delineate the whole picture in a crystal clear manner. It will be in the interest of justice that the respondents should undertake this exercise themselves again and pass well reasoned and speaking order as stated above. The O.A deserves to succeed.

6. Accordingly, the O.A is allowed. The order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the entire case and pass a well reasoned and speaking order in the light of the observation made in Para-4 of this order, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.”

12. The respondents, aggrieved by the Tribunal’s order dated 16.05.2016, approached to this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 456 of 2016. However, the said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 28.11.2016.

13. After WPSB No. 456 of 2016 was dismissed, the respondents passed the order dated 14.07.2017 again which was in the teeth of the earlier Tribunal’s order and High Court’s order. The directions given by the Tribunal were not followed and it was held that after a passage of ten years, it would not be possible to revive the earlier orders.

14. The petitioner challenged it before the Tribunal by filing O.A No. 331/01156/2017. However, the said Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 22.10.2018, whereby the Tribunal came to the conclusion that inquiry was conducted as per Rules and the conclusions of Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority are based on evidence. Consequently, aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

16. Learned counsel the petitioner has submitted that an FIR was also lodged against Shri M.C. Suyal, Shri K.N. Pandey, Shri R.C. Pandey (petitioner) and Shri N.S. Bisht under Sections 120-B, 409, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After investigation, chargesheet was filed and the case was registered as CBI Case No. 04 of 2004. The CBI Court did not find the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him and was acquitted while others were found guilty.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the evidence before the CBI Court and in the departmental proceedings were same. Despite this fact, in the departmental proceedings, petitioner has been made a scapegoat and order of dismissal has been passed against him, whereas, the other accused, having similar charges or who were directly involved in the transactions, have been granted minor punishment and, in fact, against two accused, the department did not issue any chargesheet and they were permitted to retire. In support of his contention, petitioner has submitted a chart disclosing the punishment awarded the other employees, who were granted minor punishment, which is as hereunder:- Table:- Officials, Charges, and Comparative Outcome S r. N o. 1 Name Officia l R.C. Pande y (Petitio ner) Designatio n Supervisor, SBCO Haldwani HPO Departmental Charges/Alleg ations Alleged failure detect fraudulent withdrawals (Articles 1-6) Inquiry Findings Outcome/R Remarks Dismissed from service: no relief Singled out despite acquittal; no parity or proportiona

1. Transactions predated posting; 2. Plea of alibi ignored. 3. Article 1, 2 and 4 Proved other not proved.

4. Mere negligence. 2 Shri J.P. Joshi Supervisor, SBCO Haldwani HPO Ledger verification lapses; subsidiary offender Article 1 proved partly; others not proved Minor penalty (withholding increment) Minor penalty despite similar charges 3 Shri N.S. Bisht Ledger Assistant, Haldwani HPO Negligence; Supervisory Lapses: Convicted in CBI case Article 1 and 2 were not proved. Article 3 Proved Supervisory lapses Articles 2, 3, 4 proved 4 Shri D.S. Rana Deputy Post Master, Haldwani HPO Staff 5 Shri Prem Joshi Minor procedural lapses; subsidiary offender One article not proved Recovery of Rs. 14,075/- installments Less severe penalty despite co- offender status Staff 6 Shri M.C. Gupta Minor lapses; retired Alleged supervision lapses; subsidiary offender Subsidiary offender 7 Smt. Staff Ganga Rawat 8 Shri D.N. Belwal In- charge/Su pervisor, SBCO Haldwani HPO 20% pension withheld for 3 years Pensionary penalty; not dismissal Inquiry completed under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1965 Three charges not proved Fully exonerated Exonerated despite unit/period Not proceeded due to retirement & death Proceedings ceased on 16.04.2007. Charge under Rule 14; proceedings ceased due to superannuation & death

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that charges leveled against him would reveal Reinstated despite similar charges (Major penalty) Dismissal Service; Reinstated by Tribunal Reduction from the LSG grade to lower grade Dismissal converted to minor penalty that all the alleged forged withdrawals by Shri M.C. Suyal were made before the petitioner joined the duties at Head Office, Haldwani and even the vouchers, which were placed for cross-checking before the petitioner, were placed after more than eight to nine months delay and wherever the petitioner found the irregularities, he had noted it down in the objection register as per rules, but, despite that only, petitioner has been singled out. The other employees, who had been held guilty by the CBI Court, had been left free by imposing minor penalty in the departmental inquiry. But, to the contrary, the petitioner, who had been acquitted by the CBI Court for the same-self charge as framed in the departmental proceedings, has been dismissed from service.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73; G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446; and, Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Rajendra Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that despite clear direction given by the learned Tribunal as well as by the Hon’ble High Court, the Respondent-Authority had repeatedly not followed the direction and passed the same order in a routine manner, without application of mind and without recording any reasoning. The respondents, despite categorical directions, have not given any grounds as to why petitioner have been given harsh punishment and others have been let-off by awarding minor punishments for the same charges.

21. Learned counsel the respondent has submitted that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings were not for the same charges as the criminal trial against the petitioner was proceeded on the charges under Sections 120B, 409, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, whereas the charges in the disciplinary enquiry were altogether different, based upon the violation of certain codified departmental rules, thus causing misconduct due to negligence in discharge of official duties. Learned counsel respondent has further submitted preponderance of probabilities in the criminal trial and departmental proceedings are different, therefore, petitioner could not seek benefit of acquittal in criminal trial.

22. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Airport Authority Vs. Pradip Kumar Banerjee, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 111.

23. This Court finds that the issue involved in this judgment is altogether different, which has no bearing in the present fact of cases. Here, the case stated by the petitioner is that he has been made the scapegoat, whereas the other employees, who were working at Haldwani Head Quarter at the time when the alleged fraud was committed, have either been let scot-free, as no departmental inquiry was initiated against them or have been given only minor punishment.

24. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in paragraph 9 of its judgment, in the case of Rajendra Yadav (supra), has held as hereunder:- discrimination “9. The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can imposing establish punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The disciplinary authority cannot disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for serious lesser offences and stringent punishment offences.” punishment Punishment impose should

25. No reasons have been assigned by Competent Authority as to why comparatively lighter punishment and in two cases, no punishment (as they were not even issued chargesheet) was awarded to other co-delinquents while punishment of dismissal was passed against the petitioner only. The petitioner was dismissed from service despite the fact that he was acquitted in criminal case while those delinquents who were convicted by the CBI Court, have been awarded lesser punishment when the charges leveled against the petitioner and other co-delinquents in the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are grounded on the same set of facts, charges, circumstances and evidence and for the fact that petitioner at the most be held guilty of negligence and no charge against embezzlement or misappropriation was proved against the petitioner.

26. Keeping in view the age of the petitioner, in our considered view, it would be harsh on the petitioner to remand the matter Appellate Authority/Respondent No. 2 to pass fresh orders. Even otherwise also, the Appellate Authority/Respondent No. 2, despite earlier order, passed by the Tribunal and this Hon’ble Court, did not re-consider the fact that other co- delinquents have been awarded lighter punishment or in two cases, no punishment, as was directed, but, reiterated its earlier order by passing same cyclostyle order. Since, the punishment awarded to one of the delinquents Mr. J.P. Joshi, who was working on the same post of Supervisor, SBCO, Haldwani HPO at the time when the alleged fraud was committed, have been inflicted with the minor punishment of ‘withholding of one increment’, in our considered opinion, if the same punishment is awarded to the petitioner, it would suffice the interest of justice.

27. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the considered opinion that the order dated order dated 22.10.2018 passed by learned Tribunal in Original Application No. 331/01156/2017 cannot be sustained and deserves to be set-aside.

28. With the above observation, the present Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.10.2018 passed by learned Tribunal in Original Application No. 331/01156/2017, the order dated 14.07.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 vide its Memorandum No. Staff- 11/A-C.P.M.G/3/4/07 alongwith order of dismissal dated

18.05.2007 are set-aside and the petitioner is inflicted with the minor punishment of ‘withholding of one increment’, as has been granted to similar situate other delinquent. Consequently, the claim petition filed by the petitioner being Original Application No. 1156 of 2017 is also allowed. (Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) Ujjwal

16.12.2025