Case: Union of India (UOI) and Ors Vs. Udai Bhan Singh

2. On 13 December 1978, the Respondent was appointed as a Postal Assistant in the Head Post Office at Allahabad. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 31 August 1988. There were four articles of charge pertaining to the conduct of the Respondent during the period from 15 July 1985 until 10 February 1986 when he was functioning as a Miscellaneous P.A. at the Allahabad Head Office.The charge of misconduct relates to the Appellant authorising payments of commission under the National Savings Certificate Scheme to agents who were found to be fake. Article-I of the charges was in the followingUdai Bhan Singh while working as Misc. Asstt. Allahabad HO during the period from 15.07.1985 to 10.02.1986 did not verify the commission bills submitted by NSC Agents properly and did not make entries of payment in ledger of NS Agents, He also did not watch the following particularised irregular and forged NSC commission bills to fake agents. He also managed to prepare money receipts on the number of fake agents and managed their payment. This resulted fraudulent payments of NS commission to the tune of Rs. 6,65,693.60 to the following fakenames of 79 fake agents to whom fraudulent payments of commission were allegedly made were thereafter elucidated. Article II of the charges was in the followingthe said Shri Udai Bhan Singh while functioning as Misc. PA Allahabad HO during the period from 15.07.1985 to 10.02.1988 managed to prepare three following particularized money paid receipts in duplicate and managed their payment at Allahabad HO as well as at Allahabad City PO on the following date by using the two copy oftabulated chart below the charge contained details. Article III was asthe said Shri Udai Bhan Singh while functioning as Misc. Asstt. Allahabad RO during the period from 15.07.1985 to 10.02.1986 did not submit prepare Schedule of commission paid to authorised agents for sale of NSCs and did not submit the Schedule with the voucher and bills to the Audit office though Account branch of Allahabad HO and did not tally the amount of NS commission with those of HO summary and HO cash book in r/o commission paid to the fake authorized NS Agents shown in Article No. 1 and put the department into a loss of Rs. 6,65,63.60. By his above acts he contravened the provisions of Rule 543(10) (b) of P & T Man. Vol. VI Part II.An inquiry officer was appointed to inquire into the charges. The inquiry officer submitted a report dated 18 July 1990. The inquiry officer found that the first charge was proved to the followingUdai Bhan Singh is not fully proved but it is proved to the extent that he had helped to put in loss to the department by violating the Rules for tallying the account putting his initial in token of checking against every payment of commission bill, submission of vouchers and Schedule to audit office even though he was fully aware with thesecond head of charge was held to be partially proved while the third charge was held to be proved.Upon receipt of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority awarded a penalty on 31 August 1990 of a reduction of pay for a period of five years with consequential loss of annual increments. The Respondent filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority issued a notice of enhancement of punishment. The appellate authority by its order dated 9 March 1992 came to the conclusion that the charge against the Respondent was proved and that it warranted his dismissal from service.Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the Respondent instituted proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal at the Allahabad Bench. By a judgment and order dated 3 July 1992, the Tribunal set aside both the original order dated 31 August 1990 as well as the order of the appellate authority dated 9 March 1992. The proceedings were restored back to the disciplinary authority with liberty to issue a notice to show cause to the Respondent and, after allowing him an opportunity of submitting a representation to arrive at a fresh decision.After the order of the Tribunal, a notice to show cause was issued to the Respondent by the disciplinary authority on 12 September 2000. The disciplinary authority, by an order dated 2 July 200, agreed with the inquiry officer that the first and second articles of charge were partly proved while the third charge was fully established. The disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the charges which were proved against the Respondent would warrant dismissal from service. An appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority was dismissed by the appellate authority on 28 November 2008.On 18 May 2009, the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed OA No. 151 of 2009 instituted by the Respondent. That led to the institution of proceedings before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. By its impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court interfered with the order of the disciplinary authority and came to the conclusion that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The High Court held that there was a failure on the part of the inquiry officer to provide documents to the Respondent during the course of the disciplinary inquiry. The High Court was also of the view that a notice was issued by the disciplinary authority, following the first order of the Tribunal, nearly eight years thereafter and there was a violation of "Rule 27 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Rules regarding execution of its orders". On these grounds, the High Court set aside the order of penalty imposed on the Respondent and directed his reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.

Reasoning: The question as to whether there was a failure of natural justice was dealt with by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the issue was considered by the appellate authority. The Tribunal, while dealing with the submission, came to the conclusion that the Respondent was attempting to take undue advantage of the non availability of cash receipts but the payment could be verified from other records and documents which were maintained in the Head Post Office, In other words, according to the Tribunal, the non availability of a particular document on the record did not make any difference to the charge of misconduct which was established by other materials which were available on the record. The High Court merely observed that the Respondent was not provided the documents which were relied upon and that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the order of the Tribunal. The High Court did not consider which documents were not supplied, the relevance of those documents to the charge of misconduct and the prejudice, if any, that resulted to the Respondent by the non availability of the relevant documents. In fact, in the pleadings of the Respondent, the plea that there was a failure to supply documents was vague and there was no reference to which specific document ought to have been made available. Without analyzing this aspect of the case, the High Court interfered with the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Appellant on a vague plea that documents were not supplied. The High Court ought to have enquired into the question of prejudice. There is also substance in the submission which has been urged by Ms. Suri, learned Senior Counsel with regard to the erroneous reference to Rule 27 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules. Rule 27 has no bearing at all on the controversy in the present case. Section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 deals with execution of the orders of the Tribunal.The aspect of delay must be considered in the context of the admitted facts. The inquiry had been concluded by the inquiry officer. Evidence was recorded during the course of the inquiry. The order of the disciplinary authority holding that all the three charges had been proved was without issuing a notice to the Respondent on the reasons for disagreement with the report of the inquiry officer. The appellate authority enhanced the punishment without indicating adequate reasons. The Tribunal restored the proceedings back to the disciplinary authority to enable the Appellants to issue a fresh notice to show cause to the Respondent and to arrive at a conclusion on the nature of the misconduct, if any, after furnishing an opportunity to the Respondent of making a representation. Neither was the inquiry required to be held afresh nor was fresh evidence to be recorded. After the order of the tribunal, a notice to show cause was issued to the Respondent after eight years. But it must equally be noted that the Respondent had been reinstated following the order of the tribunal setting aside the disciplinary action, pending the conclusion of the process by the disciplinary authority. Hence, the delay on the part of the disciplinary authority in issuing a show cause notice in the first instance and in passing a final order thereafter is not a matter of any prejudice to the Respondent.Now, it is well settled that the aspect of delay has to be dealt with on the facts of each case.In the present case, the Appellants have not condoned the lapse on the part of the Respondent. The delay was not a matter of prejudice.For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the High Court was in error in interfering with the exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Appellants. The misconduct was proved. The penalty which has been imposed cannot be held to be disproportionate or arbitrary. The High Court was in error in setting aside the punishment and ordering reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service.