Case: S. Raghuraman Indian Inhabitant Vs. H.M.T. Limited

Officer recorded the finding that as the voucher of Rs. 795.50 does not bear signature of Shri R.Jayaraman acknowledging receipt of Rs. 795.50/- , the said amount of Rs. 795.50 was misappropriated by the petitioner.11. Likewise the petitioner paid Rs. 4000/- by cash to M/s.Jaihind Art Printers but prepared and accounted cash payment voucher for Rs. 4445/- . The Enquiry Officer took into consideration the letter of M/s.Jaihind Art Printers stating that they have received Rs. 4,000/- . On the cash payment voucher (Exhibit 5/6), signature of M/s.Jaihind Art Printers is not seen and the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence to prove that he indeed paid Rs. 4445/to M/s.Jaihind Art Printers. In these circumstances, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the difference amount of Rs. 445/- was misappropriated.12. Furthermore, even as regards the cash payment vouchers for Rs. 1572/- and Rs. 1243/- in favour of M/s. Jaihind Art Printers, they denied the receipt of above payments. The documentary evidence in the form of cash payment voucher of Rs. 1572/- (Exhibit-6), Bill No. 2611 dated 15/10/1994 (Exhibit 7) and part of page 49 of Cash Book No.2 (Exhibit 8) wherein cash payment of Rs. 1243/- has been accounted is a part of record. The Enquiry Officer has recorded a finding that Exhibit 6 does not bear the signature of the receiving party and voucher was not traceable in the showroom and therefore, concluded that the amounts of Rs. 1,577/- and Rs. 1,743/- were misappropriated by the petitioner.13. Even in respect of an amount of Rs. 5,000/- which was said to have been paid to M/s. Cute Computer Forms Pvt. Ltd., the Company had sent a letter dated 10/05/1995 denying the receipt of the payment. The petitioner, however, produced stamped receipt dated 19/10/1994 on the partys letterhead confirming receipt of the payment. The Enquiry Officer found that the said receipt was not produced during the investigation and therefore it is apparent that payment has been made subsequently and predated receipt obtained from the party. Insofar as this charge is concerned, the Enquiry Officer did not find the charge as proved.14. Even insofar as the charge that an amount of Rs. 19676/- towards service week expenses, the Enquiry Officer concluded that the same was processed without any supporting bills and vouchers. The said amount as per the findings of the Enquiry Officer towards service expenses were paid without proper bills and vouchers. The petitioner agreed that the payments have been made without proper documents and vouchers.15. In respect of the charge that the petitioner has temporarily misappropriated an amount of Rs. 2700/- which was paid to him Shri M.A. Pershad DVM for adjusting T.A. advance drawn by him, the petitioner agreed that amount was received by him sometime in the last week of January 1995 and he did not issue receipt on the same day. Instead amount was kept separately in the drawer of his table. The Enquiry Officer took into consideration the request for demand draft of Rs. 2700/- through State Bank of India dated 15/04/1995 to prove that amount was accounted for only on that day. In this view of the matter, the Enquiry Officer held that the charge of temporarily misappropriation of Rs. 2700/- is proved.16. As regards payment of amount of Rs. 25,000/- to M/s. A to Z Furnishers without prior approval or sanction, the petitioner stated that the same was paid on oral instructions of the then DGM (W) and therefore, he did not have proper approval or sanction.17. The petitioner has taken a stand that his wife has been suffering from Cancer for about a year at the relevant time and therefore he was under great mental tension. He had to undertake the entire account work after V.R.S. of the Deputy Manager Accounts and therefore, did not have any immediate superior in Accounts Department who could guide and correct him.18. The law is well settled that this Court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the findings of the Enquiry Officer unless they are perverse nor can the evidence be appreciated as if this Court is an Appellate forum. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that any prejudice is caused to him by non supply of the documents. We find that during the course of the enquiry, the petitioner has admitted to some of the charges and in fact accepted that he has not followed the proper procedure while making payments or processing T.E. claims. Based on the material on record, the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved except charges No. 5 & 6. We do not find any infirmity with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. In our opinion, the findings of the Enquiry Officer satisfies the test of preponderance of probabilities expected in disciplinary proceedings.19. The petitioner is an Accountant and therefore, working as an Assistant Superintendent with effect from 01/04/1989 and assigned duties in Sales and Accounts and was promoted as Junior Officer (Accounts) with effect from 01/07/1993. In this light of the matter, we do not feel that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. We are therefore not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders.20. Learned Counsel for the respondents has however indicated that if an application is made by the petitioner claiming his terminal benefits i.e. provident fund, gratuity, Earned Leave encashment, 1992 pay revision arrears, the same would be cleared notwithstanding the order of dismissal. The petitioner is at a liberty to make an application to the respondents for terminal benefits as mentioned above within a period of 4 weeks from today and if such application is made, terminal dues be paid by the respondents to the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of application after adjusting the amount of Rs. 20,055/- which is to be recovered from the petitioner.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]9. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel, we are of the view that the impugned orders passed by the respondents call for no interference. We have gone through the proceedings of the enquiry and the enquiry report. Insofar as the first charge is concerned, the same relates to issuance of bearer cheques of Rs. 6,000/and Rs. 10,000/in favour of Shri Hariram which the petitioner encashed the same on his behalf but did not hand over cash to Shri Hariram. The Enquiry Officer has taken into consideration the letter dated 15/05/1995 (Exhibit 1) written by Shri Hariram denying receipt of the payment. The Enquiry Officer took into consideration that payment voucher does not bear signature of Shri Hariram acknowledging receipt of payment. In these circumstances the Enquiry Officer was of the view that the petitioners contention that he handed over the money in good faith cannot be accepted. The Enquiry Officer thus held the first charge as proved.10. The Enquiry Officer also came to conclusion that the taxi vouchers for Rs. 350/and Rs. 300/submitted by Shri R.Jayaraman along with his T.A. Bill (Exhibit 3) were detached by the petitioner and thereafter he clubbed 3 more vouchers of Rs. 125/, Rs. 5.50/and Rs. 15/totaling Rs. 795.50/which was misappropriated. The cash payment voucher for Rs. 795.50 was made in the name of R.Jayaraman. The petitioner agreed that taxi vouchers of Rs. 350/and Rs. 300/were detached by him and through oversight 3 more vouchers were clubbed. The Enquiry Officer recorded the finding that as the voucher of Rs. 795.50 does not bear signature of Shri R.Jayaraman acknowledging receipt of Rs. 795.50/, the said amount of Rs. 795.50 was misappropriated by the petitioner.11. Likewise the petitioner paid Rs. 4000/by cash to M/s.Jaihind Art Printers but prepared and accounted cash payment voucher for Rs.. The Enquiry Officer took into consideration the letter of M/s.Jaihind Art Printers stating that they have received Rs.. On the cash payment voucher (Exhibit 5/6), signature of M/s.Jaihind Art Printers is not seen and the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence to prove that he indeed paid Rs. 4445/to M/s.Jaihind Art Printers. In these circumstances, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the difference amount of Rs. 445/was misappropriated.12. Furthermore, even as regards the cash payment vouchers for Rs. 1572/and Rs. 1243/in favour of M/s. Jaihind Art Printers, they denied the receipt of above payments. The documentary evidence in the form of cash payment voucher of Rs. 1572/Bill No. 2611 dated 15/10/1994 (Exhibit 7) and part of page 49 of Cash Book No.2 (Exhibit 8) wherein cash payment of Rs. 1243/has been accounted is a part of record. The Enquiry Officer has recorded a finding that Exhibit 6 does not bear the signature of the receiving party and voucher was not traceable in the showroom and therefore, concluded that the amounts of Rs. 1,577/and Rs. 1,743/were misappropriated by the petitioner.13. Even in respect of an amount of Rs. 5,000/which was said to have been paid to M/s. Cute Computer Forms Pvt. Ltd., the Company had sent a letter dated 10/05/1995 denying the receipt of the payment. The petitioner, however, produced stamped receipt dated 19/10/1994 on the partys letterhead confirming receipt of the payment. The Enquiry Officer found that the said receipt was not produced during the investigation and therefore it is apparent that payment has been made subsequently and predated receipt obtained from the party. Insofar as this charge is concerned, the Enquiry Officer did not find the charge as proved.14. Even insofar as the charge that an amount of Rs. 19676/towards service week expenses, the Enquiry Officer concluded that the same was processed without any supporting bills and vouchers. The said amount as per the findings of the Enquiry Officer towards service expenses were paid without proper bills and vouchers. The petitioner agreed that the payments have been made without proper documents and vouchers.15. In respect of the charge that the petitioner has temporarily misappropriated an amount of Rs. 2700/which was paid to him Shri M.A. Pershad DVM for adjusting T.A. advance drawn by him, the petitioner agreed that amount was received by him sometime in the last week of January 1995 and he did not issue receipt on the same day. Instead amount was kept separately in the drawer of his table. The Enquiry Officer took into consideration the request for demand draft of Rs. 2700/through State Bank of India dated 15/04/1995 to prove that amount was accounted for only on that day. In this view of the matter, the Enquiry Officer held that the charge of temporarily misappropriation of Rs. 2700/is proved.16. As regards payment of amount of Rs. 25,000/to M/s. A to Z Furnishers without prior approval or sanction, the petitioner stated that the same was paid on oral instructions of the then DGM (W) and therefore, he did not have proper approval or sanction.17. The petitioner has taken a stand that his wife has been suffering from Cancer for about a year at the relevant time and therefore he was under great mental tension. He had to undertake the entire account work after V.R.S. of the Deputy Manager Accounts and therefore, did not have any immediate superior in Accounts Department who could guide and correct him.18. The law is well settled that this Court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the findings of the Enquiry Officer unless they are perverse nor can the evidence be appreciated as if this Court is an Appellate forum. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that any prejudice is caused to him by non supply of the documents. We find that during the course of the enquiry, the petitioner has admitted to some of the charges and in fact accepted that he has not followed the proper procedure while making payments or processing T.E. claims. Based on the material on record, the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved except charges No. 56. We do not find any infirmity with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. In our opinion, the findings of the Enquiry Officer satisfies the test of preponderance of probabilities expected in disciplinary proceedings.19. The petitioner is an Accountant and therefore, working as an Assistant Superintendent with effect from 01/04/1989 and assigned duties in Sales and Accounts and was promoted as Junior Officer (Accounts) with effect from 01/07/1993. In this light of the matter, we do not feel that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. We are therefore not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders.20. Learned Counsel for the respondents has however indicated that if an application is made by the petitioner claiming his terminal benefits i.e. provident fund, gratuity, Earned Leave encashment, 1992 pay revision arrears, the same would be cleared notwithstanding the order of dismissal. The petitioner is at a liberty to make an application to the respondents for terminal benefits as mentioned above within a period of 4 weeks from today and if such application is made, terminal dues be paid by the respondents to the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of application after adjusting the amount of Rs. 20,055/which is to be recovered from the petitioner.