UNION OF INDIA Vs. DAYANAND PANDORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNION of India and its officers have filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging order dated 11.3.2008 (P -4) rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') allowing the original application of the applicant -respondent No. 1 by setting aside the orders dated 23.2.2004 (A -10) and 9.3.2005 (A -13). The Tribunal has further directed the petitioners to pass orders restoring the benefits in favor of the applicant -respondent No. 1 including the benefits concerning his suspension period treating it as period spend on duty for all intents and purposes. The undisputed facts are that the applicant -respondent No. 1 was working as a Sub Post Master and posted at NH -2 Faridabad Post Office. On 27.3.1998, a charge sheet under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity, 'the Rules') was served upon him. In short the charges leveled against him were that on 18.3.1997 he allowed opening of three RD Accounts in the names of Ritu Kapoor, Karan Kapoor and R.K. Singh, which were shown as transferred RD Accounts from Sector 16, Faridabad with balance amount of '64,000/ - in each account, as against the actual balance of 4,000/ - in each account. Furthermore, without following the proper procedure, he permitted withdrawal of '20,000/ - from each account. The second charge against the applicant -respondent No. 1 was that on 31.3.1997 he allowed closure of the said RD accounts with payments i.e. within one year of opening of said accounts, which is in contravention of the relevant rules. It was, thus, alleged that the applicant -respondent No. 1 did not maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming of Government servant contravening the provisions of Rule 34(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (A -2).

(2.) A regular departmental inquiry was initiated against the applicant -respondent No. 1. On 14.7.2000, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report concluding that the charges leveled against him were not proved (A -3). However, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Faridabad Division -disciplinary authority disagreed with the inquiry report and recorded a 'dissenting note' dated 17.1.2002 (A -4). The applicant -respondent No. 1 was given an opportunity to make representation against the findings recorded in the 'dissenting note'. On 1.2.2002, the applicant -respondent No. 1 submitted a detailed explanation (A -5). On 15.3.2002, the disciplinary authority passed an order against the applicant respondent No. 1 inflicting the punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and directing recovery of 1/4th of his basic pay spread over a period of ten months to offset loss of 'misappropriated amount' (A -6). The appeal preferred by the applicant -respondent No. 1 against the order dated 15.3.2002 was rejected by the Director, Postal Services, Haryana Circle, vide order dated 20.12.2002. Against this order the applicant -respondent No. 1 submitted a revision petition to the Chief Postmaster General, Haryana Circle, which was allowed vide order dated 25.7.2003, setting aside orders dated 15.3.2002 and 20.12.2002. The case was remitted back to the disciplinary authority for de novo proceedings from the stage of recording of reasons of disagreement and tentative findings etc. (A -7).

(3.) THE applicant -respondent No, 1 was then served with a show cause notice dated 28.12.2004 (A -11) as to why his suspension allowance be not recovered from him. On 26.2.2005, he submitted a reply to the said show cause notice (A -12).Thereafter, on 9.3.2005 the disciplinary authority passed an order treating his suspension from 17.10.1997 to 14.5.1998 as 'non -duty' period and no pay and allowances for the said period were payable to him (A -13).