C.W.P. No. 21616 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 21616 of 2008 Decided on : 23-12-2008 Rattan Chand .... Petitioner VERSUS Union of India & others .... Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- Present:- Mr. P.M. Kansal, Advocate for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh on 12.09.2006 (Annexure P-4) and the order in Review Application dated 06.12.2006 (Annexure P-6), wherein an application disputing the order of punishment i.e. removal from service, was dismissed. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 16.04.2002. The Article II of the Charge is as under:- “The said Shri Rattan Chand, PA Samana while working as PA, Sirhind so, during the period 1.12.85 to 19.4.90 failed to keep the date stamp of his branch of Sirhind so in his custody safely during working hours resulting in its misuse by impressing it on lost/stolen KVPs No.02AA, 832616 to 832700, 05BB 326312 to C.W.P. No. 21616 of 2008 -2- 326400, 0400 030477 to 030486 and 04CC 030494 to 030500 which caused loss to the tune of Rs.9,66,000/- to the Department by fraudulently encashment/payment of the above KVPs at different Post Offices in Ambala, infringing the provisions of Rule 21(2) of P & T Manual Volume VI Part-I (5th Edition corrected up to 31.3.82).” On the said charge, the Inquiry Officer concluded to the following facts:- “As discussed above the article of charge that stamp of Sirhind so was misused on 6.6.89, 9.6.89, 23.6.89 and 24.6.89 due to the negligency of Shri Rattan Chand is proved. So, the article -II of the charge sheet framed against Shri Rattan Chand Postal Assistant Samana (U/S) framed vide Sr. Supdt. of Post Office, Divn. Memo No. F-5/1/01-02 dated 16.4.02 is proved.” On the basis of proof of such charge, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order removing the petitioner from service. The relevant part of the order is as under:- “From the above discussions, I agree with the findings of the inquiry officer and hold Sh. Rattan Chand responsible for the misuse of date stamp which caused loss to the department to the tune of Rs.9,66,000/-. It is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that Sh. Rattan Chand is responsible for misuse of the date stamp of Sirhind so on 6.6.1989, 9.6.1989, 23.06.1989 and 24.6.1989. Had he kept the date stamp on the said dates in his safe custody, it could not have been misused and fraudulent payment of such a huge amount of C.W.P. No. 21616 of 2008 -3- Rs.9,66,000/- could have been avoided. It cannot be rules out that the said Sh. Rattan Chand is a master mind behind the loss of certificates, misuse of date stamp, and fraudulent encashment of certificates. There is no way to think that charge has been proved on the basis of suspicion, there is a clear violation of Rule 21(2) of P&T Manual Vol. VI Part I on the part of the official.” The challenge to the order of punishment has remained unsuccessful before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Even the Review Petition has been dismissed. In the present writ petition, the sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of punishment is passed upon an allegation which was not even a part of the charge-sheet and therefore, the Disciplinary Authority has executed its jurisdiction in passing the order of punishment. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, we do not find any substance in the said argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he has failed to keep the date stamp in safe custody, which resulted in its misuse causing loss of Rs.9,66,000/-. The Inquiry Officer has proved the said charge. The Punishing Authority has passed the order of punishment on the basis of such proved charge. The argument that the petitioner has been found responsible for the misuse of the date stamp, is not tenable inasmuch as that the misuse is not attributed to the petitioner. But, on account of the negligence of the petitioner which led to misuse, the loss has been caused to the Department. In view of the said fact, the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be said to be in contravention to the charges levelled C.W.P. No. 21616 of 2008 -4- against the petitioner. Such findings cannot be said to be suffering from illegality or irregularity which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. (Hemet Gupta) Judge 23rd December 2008. (Nawab Singh) Monika Judge