Case: The Government of Andhra Pradesh &amp; Others Vs. Ch. Gandhi

3. The facts which are imperative to be adumbrated are that a disciplinary proceeding under Rule 5 of the Rules was initiated against the respondent, a Senior Accountant in the Office of the Sub Treasury, Nakrekal, on the charges that while functioning as the senior most Accountant in the said office andof the strong room keys, at the time of surprise check by the Deputy Director, District Treasury, Nalgonda, he was absent and had not signed the attendance register in token of his having attended the office and also not maintained the movement register as required under the Rules; that he had failed to keep the currency chest book in the currency chest and not endorsed every transaction; that he had passed the bills, cheques and challans in token of approval of the payment/receipts without signing them; that he had not properly maintained the strongregister which was found outside the strong room and further the entries were not recorded and signed by him; that he had failed to remain present at the time of depositing money or withdrawing money from the currency chest and allowed others to operate the currency chest by using the keys of joint custodian; and that he had failed to submit the currency chest slip to R.B.I. on 15.4.2003 in respect of the currency chest transactions of 15.4.2003 and also failed to submit the daily sheets of 15.4.2003 and 16.4.2003.4. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges and he submitted the report that the charges were proven. On the basis of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority, after following the requisite procedure, imposed the penalty of reversion to the post of Junior Accountant for two years with the stipulation that there would be postponement of future increments.5. Aggrieved by the said punishment, the respondent approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 923 of 2006 and raised various points assailing the validity of the initiation of the proceeding, the manner in which the enquiry was conducted and lastly, that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the misconduct. The Tribunal referred to the Rule position and came to hold that there was no illegality or irregularity in the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding, framing of charge or conduct of the enquiry and further, regard being had to the gravity of the charge, the punishment could not be treated to be disproportionate. Being of this view, the Tribunal dismissed the original application.6. The failure before the Tribunal compelled the respondent to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court which, after adverting to the facts in detail and the competence of the person who had initiated the proceeding by issuing the memorandum of charges, came to hold that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the said scores were absolutely defensible and did not warrant any interference. As far as the imposition of punishment was concerned, a contention was advanced that he had been imposed two major penalties which were not in consonance with the Rules. The High Court referred to the order of punishment, Rule 9 of the Rules that deals with major penalties and27 of Rule 11 of the said Rules and came to hold that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority did amount to imposition of two penalties and, accordingly, set aside the punishment which had been concurred with by the tribunal and clarified that the said overturning of the orders would not preclude the authorities to pass appropriate orders pertaining to punishment keeping in view the provisions of the Rules.Calling in question the legal propriety of the said order, it is urged by Mr. G.N. Reddy, learned counsel for the State and its functionaries, that the High Court has erroneously opined that two major penalties had been issued in violation of the Rules though reversion to the lower post for a period of two years with the stipulation of postponement of future increments on restoration to higher category does not tantamount to two major penalties under Rule 9 and, under no circumstances, it contravenes) to Rule 11 of the Rules. It is his submission that the said punishment, being in consonance with the Rules and further such imposition of punishment not being unknown to service jurisprudence, did not warrant interference by the High Court. The learned counsel further canvassed that the amended Rules permit imposition of such punishment but the same has not been taken note of by the High Court which makes the order absolutely vulnerable.

Court's reasoning:
50. In the case at hand, under the unamended rule, there were, apart from stoppage of increment with cumulative effect and reduction in rank, grade, post or service, three major punishments, namely, compulsory retirement, removal and dismissal from service by which there was severance of service. The maximum punishment that could have been imposed on an employee after conducting due departmental enquiry was dismissal from service. The rule making authority, by way of amendment, has bifurcated the rule 9(vii) into two parts, namely, 9(vii)(a) and 9(vii)(b). As is evincible, theonly referred to the imposition of major penalty or to be dealt with under the said rules relating to major penalty. In this backdrop, it would be difficult to say that the employee had the vested right to be imposed a particular punishment as envisaged under the unamended rules. Once the charges have been proven, he could have been imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement or removal from service or dismissal from service. The rule making authority thought it apposite to amend the rules to introduce a different kind of punishment which is lesser than the maximum punishment or, for that matter, lesser punishment than that of compulsory retirement from service. The order of compulsory retirement is a lesser punishment than dismissal or removal as the pension of a compulsorily retired employee, if eligible to get pension under the Pension Rules, is not affected. Rule 9(vii) was only dealing with reduction or reversion but issuance of any other direction was not a part of it. It has come by way of amendment. The same being a lesser punishment than the maximum, in our considered opinion, is imposable and the disciplinary authority has not committed any error by imposing the said punishment, regard being had to the nature of charges. It can be looked from another angle. The rule making authority has splitted Rule 9(vii) into two parts – one is harsher than the other, but, both are less severe than the other punishments, namely, compulsory retirement, removal from service or dismissal. The reason behind it, as we perceive, is not to let off one with simple reduction but to give a direction about the condition of pay on restoration and also not to impose a harsher punishment which may not be proportionate. In our view, the same really does not affect any vested or accrued right. It also does not violate any Constitutional protection.