UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAM DASS RAKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein was issued charge sheet in August 1998 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The genesis of charge, on the basis of which three articles of charge were framed, was that while working as Postal Assistant, Amanpur Sub-Post Office during the month of December 1997 and January 1998, he performed the work of money order payments. Later it was found that money vouchers, in respect of which payments were made, were not genuine and payment of those money orders were not made to the payees and in this manner a sum of Rs.12,000/- in respect of 8 money orders, particulars whereof were mentioned in the charge sheet, was misappropriated by him. Departmental inquiries were held pursuant to which charges were proved. Acting thereupon, the disciplinary authority had passed orders dated 31.7.2001 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service against the respondent. Appeal preferred by the respondent also failed and feeling aggrieved against these orders, the respondent preferred OA No. 824/2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi. The learned Tribunal held that the proceedings conducted against the respondent were legal and valid. However, the Tribunal interfered with the punishment holding that the same was discriminatory. Reasoning given by the Tribunal is that similar charge sheets containing these very allegations were served upon two other employees, namely, Shri Biri Singh and Shri Prem Singh, but in those cases the punishment imposed was lesser, i.e. reduction of pay by 5 stages and, therefore, the petitioner was discriminated by giving a harsher punishment. The relevant discussion in this behalf is contained in the following paragraphs of the order of the Tribunal :-

(2.) The Tribunal, accordingly, quashed the penalty imposed and remitted the case back to the disciplinary authority to pass fresh order of penalty after taking into consideration the penalty imposed on Shri Biri Singh and Shri Prem Singh. Challenging this judgment, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) Case of the petitioner is that in the matter of disciplinary proceedings such a comparison cannot be made and the Tribunal could not have held the punishment imposed upon the respondent to be discriminatory only on the ground that the other two persons were given milder punishment. He further submitted that separate disciplinary proceedings were held against the three employees and the disciplinary authorities were also different. He also pointed out that the three were not of the same rank and the role of the three officials was of different nature, though it related to the same transaction.