Service Law – Misconduct – Fraud – Defrauding public money – Limited jurisdiction of the Court on proportionality of the order of departmental authority – Respondent was a public servant in Post office – He committed fraud by way of fraudulent withdrawal / non-credit of deposits in RD accounts – Punishment of ‘removal’ from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority – Tribunal interfered with the punishment so imposed by modifying / substituting the same from ‘removal’ to ‘compulsory retirement’ – Order passed by Tribunal confirmed by the High Court – Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court found any irregularity or procedural lapses in conducting departmental enquiry – On appeal, held: Once, a conscious decision was taken by the Disciplinary Authority to remove an employee on the proved misconduct of a very serious nature of defrauding public money, neither the Tribunal nor the High Court should have interfered with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was after considering the gravity and seriousness of the misconduct – Merely because respondent had worked for 39 years and in those years, there was no punishment imposed and/or that he voluntarily deposited the defrauded amount along with penal interest and therefore there was no loss to the Government/Department cannot be a ground to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and substitute the same from removal to that of compulsory retirement – Being a public servant in the post office, respondent was holding the post of trust – By such misconduct /act on the part of respondent, the reputation of the Postal department had been tarnished – Order of Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of ‘removal’ of respondent from service, accordingly, restored – Judicial Review. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. In the case on hand, the order passed by the Tribunal, confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court, substituting the punishment of removal to that of compulsory retirement is unsustainable. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court have found any irregularity in conducting the departmental enquiry. No procedural lapses have been found. In fact, the respondent employee admitted the charge of having defrauded Rs.16,59,065/- and on detecting the fraud, he deposited the defrauded amount of Rs.16,59,065/- along with penal interest. But for the detection of the fraud, probably, the respondent employee would not have deposited the defrauded amount. Once, a conscious decision was taken by the Disciplinary Authority to remove an employee on the proved misconduct of a very serious nature of defrauding public money, neither the Tribunal nor the High Court should have interfered with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was after considering the gravity and seriousness of the misconduct. [Para 8][59-B-E]
2. Merely because the respondent-employee had worked for 39 years and in those years, there was no punishment imposed and/or that he voluntarily deposited the defrauded amount along with penal interest and therefore there was no loss to the Government/Department cannot be a ground to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and substitute the same from removal to that of compulsory retirement. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court have, in fact, considered the nature and gravity of the misconduct committed by the delinquent officer. [Para 9][59-E-G]
3. Once it was found that the delinquent officer who was serving in the post office had defrauded to the extent of Rs.16,59,065/- and that too, by way of fraudulent withdrawal in as many as 85 RD accounts and by way of non-credit of deposits in
71 RD accounts, no sympathy on such an employee was warranted. Being a public servant in the post office, the delinquent officer was holding the post of trust. Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee. What about the loss caused to the department by way of goodwill, name and fame of the department and its reliability amongst the public? By such a misconduct/act on the part of the delinquent officer, the reputation of the department had been tarnished. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, both, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have exceeded in their jurisdiction in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and to substitute the same to that of compulsory retirement. Consequently, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of removing the delinquent employee from service is hereby restored. [Paras 10, 12][59-H; 60-A-C; 60-G]
Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. & Others v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, (2008) 5 SCC
569 : [2008] 3 SCR 1184, and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 644 – relied on.
Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal, (2005) 2 SCC 638 : [2005] 1 SCR 790; State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, (2006) 12 SCC 561 : [2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 650; Regional Manager, SBI v. Mahatma Mishra,(2006) 13 SCC 727 : [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 216; State of
Karnataka v. Ameerbi, (2007) 11 SCC 681 : [2006]
10 Suppl. SCR 329; State of M.P. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, (2008) 1 SCC 456 : [2007] 10 SCR 951; and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Surji Devi, (2008) 2 SCC 310 : [2008] 1 SCR 1042 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.