LAWS(SC)-2022-4-43

UNION OF INDIA Vs. M. DURAISAMY

Decided On April 19, 2022
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
M. Duraisamy Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dtd. 30/8/2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 33303/2013, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellants herein - Union of India and others and has confirmed the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Original Application (OA) No. 357 of 2012 by which the Tribunal allowed the said OA and modified the punishment from dismissal/removal from service to compulsory retirement, the Union of India and others have preferred the present appeal.

(2.) The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: That the respondent herein was serving as a Postal Assistant. While he was working as SPM Veppur SO during the period from 2004 to 2007, he committed fraud by way of fraudulent withdrawal in 85 RD accounts and by way of non-credit of deposits in 71 RD accounts and defrauded a sum of Rs.16,59,065.00. The fraud came to light when enquiries were made based on the report of Postmaster, Srirangam vide letter dtd. 11/6/2007 about double payment of RD closure in respect of some RD accounts which revealed that the accounts were fraudulently closed by the respondent herein for the second time by way of forging the signatures of the depositors and a sum of Rs.52,395.00 had been withdrawn from the said accounts by the respondent fraudulently. Further investigation brought to light the frauds committed by the respondent herein. Thereafter having come to know that the fraud has been detected, the respondent herein deposited a total sum of Rs.18,09,041.00 (the amount of fraud Rs.16,66,439.00 + penal interest of Rs.1,42,602.00).

(3.) Shri Balbir Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed a grave error in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.