UNION OF INDIA Vs. KUSHAL PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred to as 'CAT') dated 10.01.2014 in OA 3569/2012. By the impugned order, the CAT set aside the penalty of dismissal imposed upon the respondent/applicant on 25.09.2009 (hereafter called the "penalty") and directed his reinstatement with 50% back wages. The CAT also issued other directions with regard to the period of services between the penalty order and date of its order.

(2.) THE applicant at the relevant time in 2007 was working as Saving Bank Counter Assistant at the Head Post Office, Saharanpur. A joint account operated by Late Angoori Devi and one Ms. Kumud Gupta, her daughter in law (hereafter referred to as 'complainant') had been opened on 22.7.2000 in that branch. On 23.7.2003, a sum of Rs. 79,000/ - was withdrawn from that joint account. Later another amount of Rs. 1,45,000/ - was withdrawn - on 23.12.2005. The applicant was charged by memo dated 31.8.2007 stating that these withdrawals were impermissible and that Angoori Devi, the joint account holder had died on 16.7.2003. The applicant denied the charges on 14.9.2007. On 11.12.2007, the Department of Posts rejected his explanation and appointed an Enquiry Officer. The enquiry report dated 14.2.2009 exonerated the applicant. The reasons for Enquiry Officer's findings were that the complainant had neither furnished the death certificate of her mother in law at the time of complaint nor during the enquiry and that her statement showed that she was aware of the death of Angoori Devi only six months later. The Enquiry Officer also accepted the explanation of the applicant that he did not make the payment unauthorizedly but under directions of Assistant Post Master after satisfying the formalities which included identification of the person who claimed the amount by the concerned small saving agent.

(3.) THE CAT by its order, impugned in the present case, after referring to the facts relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Kunj Bihari Mishra, : 1998 (7) SCC 84 and State Bank of India v. Arvind Kumar Shukla, : AIR 2001 SC 2398, held that the denial of opportunity to the applicant to present his views to the disciplinary authority vitiated the disciplinary proceedings. After holding so, instead of relegating the matter for reconsideration to the disciplinary authority with the direction to give appropriate hearing, the CAT went ahead and re -appreciated the evidence and arrived at the conclusion contrary to the disciplinary authority in the following terms: