PREM NARAIN SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Original Application is preferred by the applicant u/s. 19 of the AT Act, with the following reliefs:

(2.) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents filed their reply and through reply, it was pointed out by the respondents that applicant while working as Assistant Post Master, Lucknow Chowk Head Quarter, opened a S.B. Account No. 658213 in his name and deposited Rs. 500/ - on 24.5.2004 and he was given a cheque book. Subsequently another cheque book was issued to the applicant on 27.5.2004 and the applicant made an withdrawal of Rs. 400/ - on 28.8.2004 from his account and subsequently, he has again withdrew Rs. 40,000/ - on different dates from the same account. The applicant was charged for violation of Rule 3(i)(i)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and an enquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was set up for probing the charges against the applicant. Subsequently, after completion of enquiry, it has been decided to impose punishment of reduction of 5 stages for a period of 2 years was passed. The applicant preferred an appeal against the order of Disciplinary Authority. The said appeal of the applicant was also rejected after considering all the material available on record. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has categorically pointed out that the punishment awarded to the applicant was only after following full procedure of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and there is no illegality in conducting the enquiry. Apart from this, it is also pointed out by the respondents that applicant being a responsible Government servant is not expected to commit fraud in matters of transactions of Saving Bank Accounts including that in his own name and since the applicant has committed grave misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, as such the punishment was awarded against the applicant. Not only this, learned Counsel for respondents also taken us to the enquiry report and through enquiry report, it was pointed out that the charged official along with his defence assistant participated in the entire enquiry and the charged official was given due opportunity to submit his defense. Not only this, defense statement given by the charge official as well as the defense assistant was also considered by the enquiry officer and after considering all the aspects of the matter, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order. As such, it is pointed out by the respondents that there is no illegality in conducting the enquiry, therefore, the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed out rightly.

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.