UNION OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF POST, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DAK BHAVAN, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001 AND OTHERS Vs. NINGAPPA HURALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this petition have sought to quash the order dated 24/08/2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, in OA No. 302/2010 produced at Annexure -A. The respondent being aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench Bangalore, in O.A.No. 302/2010, contending that respondent confronted with imminent death of his son - in - law who was the husband of his newly married daughter has mis -appropriated Rs. 800/ - which were to be given to two ladies at the rate of Rs. 400/ - each and also took office cash of Rs. 161.25 on 17.4.2008. for the immediate medical treatment of his son - in - law, but despite his efforts, his son - in - law passed away on 19.4.2008. But by that time, his infraction came to light and on questioning, he candidly admitted his guilt and he was proceeded against and as a penalty, removed from service. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 24th August 2011. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and after perusal of the materials available on record has observed that whether a small amount or big amount, mis -appropriation still remain a misappropriation, but the difference is, the purpose for which it was taken and whether it offers any mitigation and if adhere to technical justice than dynamism of justice delivery the expression of constitution and its true spiritual compliance with the constitutional process would be lost for ever and that the penalty of dismissal imposed on respondent is disproportion to the charges levelled against him and quashed the impugned orders of removing him from service and all consequential orders thereof and directed the petitioners herein to reinstate the respondent within two months next and treat the period till such reinstatement as duty and since he was not working during that period granted him 50% of the pay and allowances if not paid within that time frame of two months next, the respondent would be entitled to his full pay and allowances Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have presented this writ petition.

(2.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset is that, the order impugned passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside for the reason that, in fact, the respondent himself has categorically admitted regarding the mis - appropriation of Rs. 800/ - which should have been given to two ladies at the rate of Rs. 400/ - each and also he took cash of Rs. 161.25, there is no other option except to remove him from services as it is a public money and accordingly he has been dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority and the same has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the same. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after careful perusal of the materials available on record, including the order passed by the Tribunal, we do not find any error or illegality or much less material irregularity as such committed by the Tribunal in allowing the said application and granting the relief. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the misappropriation has been admitted by the respondent and therefore, the penalty imposed is just and proper. If the respondent has admitted the guilt, the authority might have given lesser punishment having regard to the magnitude and nature of charges levelled against him and imposing penalty of removal from service is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal is justified in allowing the application and quashing the consequential order. The intention of the department is to punish the respondent for the offence committed by him and not to ruin his entire future. The aim and object is to reform and motivate the employees to discharge their duty honestly. But this aspect of the matter has not been looked into or considered either by the Disciplinary Authority or by the Appellate Authority and that has been rightly considered by the Tribunal after re -appreciation of the records and accordingly, allowed the application. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal for allowing the said application is just and reasonable and therefore, interference by this Court is not called for. Nor it is a fit case to entertain the relief sought in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed as devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly.