UNION OF INDIA Vs. N.C. BHAUMIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Intra-Court appeals had been preferred as against the order of the learned Single Judge, wherein, the learned Single Judge by a common order dtd. 19/2/2020 had modified the punishment that had been imposed against the respondents herein.

(2.) Heard Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General for Mr.J.Madanagopal Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr.R.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel for the respondent in both the appeals.

(3.) The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants would submit that the respondents herein had been found in possession of a sum of Rs.230.00which was recovered from the cabin under their control wrapped in a handkerchief. He would submit that the said amount was in excess of the amount that was permitted to be with their persons during the course of their duty. Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them and having not been satisfied with their explanation, an enquiry officer was also appointed, who after detailed enquiry, by examining the necessary witnesses had given a report that the delinquency with which the respondents have been charged to have been proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority had inflicted a punishment of reduction of pay by three increments in Pay Band-I for a period of three years and that they will not be entitled to earn any increments. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge had held that the charges could not be said to have been proved as it was only the respondents who had been proceeded with, whereas, it has been admitted by the witnesses that there are other persons who are also in charge of Gate-A and that they have not been proceeded with, which had violated the Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also in violation of principles of natural justice. But, however, the learned Single Judge taking into account that there has been negligence on the part of the respondents, instead of remitting the matter for fresh enquiry, had gone ahead in modifying the punishment into reduction of time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect. He would submit that the learned Single Judge exercising the power of judical review ought not to have reappreciated the evidence. He would submit that it has been the specific case of the Department, which has also been supported by the witnesses that it was only the respondent in the respective appeals who were incharge of the cabin from which the money had been recovered. The respondents have not disproved the said fact and therefore, it was only the respondents who would be liable to answer or to explain as to how the money was in the cabin. This aspect had been completely over-looked by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, he would submit that the order impugned in these Intra-Court Appeals should be interfered with.