SANGEETA ASHOK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner questions the legality of an order dated 31 -01 -2011 of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissing her application (OA No. 3462/2009). She had approached the CAT against an order of dismissal issued by her employer, the respondent Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (hereafter "KVS").

(2.) THE petitioner was working, at the relevant time, as Lower Division Clerk ("LDC") in one of the KVS schools. A memorandum dated 22/23.12.87 leveling allegations of misconduct was issued to her. Three charges specifying the relevant facts were made; the first pertained to her wrongful appropriation of the Group Insurance amount of ?10,117/ -, which were proceeds payable to Late Sh. P.S. Pathania, Lab. Attendant 's dependents, by retaining it with her from October, 1984 to August, 1985. The second charge was that whilst working as ad -hoc UDC, she tampered with her service book and third, that she made an unauthorized visit to the Army Officers swimming pool at Kaluchak on 25.7.1987 and made false entries, representing herself as the daughter of a Colonel. The enquiry resulted in her exoneration in respect of the last charge; partial exoneration of the second charge and a finding of guilt in the first charge. The inquiry findings and report were furnished to the petitioner through a memorandum dated 25.6.2008. This led to the disciplinary authority issuing the penalty of her dismissal from service, by an order dated 21.7.2008. The petitioner appealed against this order; the Appellate authority, by its order dated 28.11.2008 rejected the appeal.

(3.) IT is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the CAT fell into clear error, because there was no material for it to concur with the disciplinary and appellate authorities' findings. It was argued that so far as the charge of embezzlement went, neither did the alleged complainant depose or record any statement (even though she was, like the petitioner, an employee of KVS) nor was it ever proved that the money which belonged to the deceased employee, Mr. Pathania ever found its way into any bank account of the petitioner. Furthermore, argued Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no statement in support of the KVS stand that the bank account was that of the petitioner. No statement or deposition of the bank manager or other responsible employee or officer was ever recorded to link that account with the petitioner. In fact, during the enquiry, the petitioner could not remember the number due to lapse of a long period of time. As regards the second charge, counsel submitted that the findings in the inquiry about the charge being ''partly proved '' are without basis. It was argued in this regard that the so called manipulation of the appointment letter, allegedly done by the petitioner, made no sense because the KVS was unable to produce the service record, or establish that she had drawn pay as a Upper Division Clerk, at the relevant time. All the documents showed that she was paid in accordance with her entitlement as LDC. The findings were absolutely baseless.