jdk 1 3.civilwp.3315.17.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3315 OF 2017
1) The State of Maharashtra ]
Through the Director of Education ]
(General Education), Central Bldg. ]
1st Floor, Maharashtra State, Pune-1 ]
]
2)The Deputy Director of Education, ]
Mumbai Division, Charni Road, ]
Mumbai ].. Petitioners
Vs.
Shri. N.K. Kirdat ]
Superintendent, ]
Shaleya Poshan Ahar Yojna ]
Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, ]
Thane ]..Respondent
....
Mr.Vishal Thadani AGP for the Petitioners
Mr.S.C.Chandratre Advocate for the Respondent
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
SANDEEP K.SHINDE, JJ.
DATED : JUNE 05, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]: 1 Heard the learned AGP for the petitioners and the learned advocate for the respondent.
1 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2017 00:45:39 :::
jdk 2 3.civilwp.3315.17.j.doc
2 Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith
and matter is taken up for final hearing.
3 This petition has been preferred against the order
dated 1.10.2013 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in Original Application No. 289 of 2011 preferred by the respondent herein (Original Applicant). By order dated 1.10.2013, the original application preferred by the respondent came to be allowed. In the original application, the respondent had challenged punishment imposed on him in the Departmental Enquiry as the amount of 24 employees towards General Provident Fund (GPF), was not deposited in the State Bank of India.
4 The respondent was working as Senior Clerk in the office of the Education Officer (Continuing Education) Zilla Parishad, Thane. During the period from 2001 to 2004, he was acting as Cashier. The departmental enquiry was held against him on the charge that he did not deposit the deductions made from the salary of 24 Group "C" and "D" employees towards GPF in State Bank of India, Thane in the appropriate head of 2 of 6 ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2017 00:45:39 ::: jdk 3 3.civilwp.3315.17.j.doc account. Punishment was imposed on him by order dated 31.10.2007. The respondent had preferred an appeal against the order of punishment and in the appeal, the punishment was reduced to stoppage of one increment for two years without cumulative effect. The respondent had challenged the order of punishment dated 30.10.2007 and the order in appeal dated 28.5.2010.
5 The main contention of the respondent was that he had been punished though there was absolutely no evidence against him. The Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority did not consider the relevant evidence. He was working as a Cashier. His duty was limited to collecting the salary of the staff working in the office of the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad Thane from the office of Chief Accounts and Finance Officer, Zilla Parishad and to disburse it to the concerned employees. The work of deduction from the salary of staff members on account of GPF etc. which were to be deposited in the State Bank of India, was not entrusted to him. The work was in fact, entrusted to one Mr. Thorat who has admitted that this work was entrusted to him.
3 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2017 00:45:39 :::
jdk 4 3.civilwp.3315.17.j.doc
6 The duty of the Cashier was to collect the net salary of
all the staff and disburse the same in cash. The deductions on various counts like GPF etc. were given by separate cheques to be deposited under the appropriate heads of account in State Bank of India. If the cheques were not deposited in State Bank of India, the amount remained in the District Fund maintained by the Zilla Parishad and there was no misappropriation of the same by the respondent. It is to be noted that it is no one's case that the present respondent had misappropriated the amount. However, it is the case of the petitioner that as it was the duty of the respondent to disburse the salary of the staff in cash, he was therefore, necessarily responsible for depositing the amounts deducted from salary towards GPF under the appropriate heads of account in State Bank of India. 7 The categorical case of the respondent is that the work of deducting the amount towards GPF was entrusted to one Mr. Thorat. It is pertinent to note that in the Enquiry Report it is mentioned that the work of deduction was never with the respondent and in fact, Mr. Thorat in his application dated 4 of 6 ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2017 00:45:39 ::: jdk 5 3.civilwp.3315.17.j.doc 18.12.2004 has specifically admitted that the work of filling of chalans remained on his part i.e. of Mr. Thorat. In addition, in the enquiry report, it is stated that in the monthly meeting, Mr. Thorat was instructed to deposit the deductions. 8 Thus, it is clear that the mere fact that the respondent was taking cash allowance and disbursing cash, does not in any way indicate that he was responsible for depositing the amount deducted from the salary of staff towards GPF etc. in the appropriate heads of account in State Bank of India. The Education Officer has admitted in his letter dated 22.8.2005 that this work was never entrusted to the respondent. On the other hand, there is evidence to show that this work was entrusted to one Mr. D.M. Thorat. There are at least three factors pointing out towards this fact i.e. (1) undeposited cheques towards GPF were found in the cup-board of Mr. Thorat, (2) in the meeting instructions were given by Education Officer to Mr. D.M. Thorat to deposit such cheques in GPF account and (3) letter dated 18.12.2004 of Mr. D.M.Thorat which shows that the work was entrusted to him of depositing such cheques. All these facts were known to the Enquiry Officer 5 of 6 ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2017 00:45:39 ::: jdk 6 3.civilwp.3315.17.j.doc and the Disciplinary Authority. It appears that these important facts were disregarded and Enquiry Officer has held that the respondent was solely responsible for depositing the amount deducted towards GPF as he was taking cash allowance. 9 In view of the above, we cannot find any fault with the order dated 1.10.2013 of the Tribunal whereby the punishment was set aside, hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Rule is discharged. Petition is dismissed. [SANDEEP K.SHINDE, J.] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ] kandarkar 6 of 6 ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2017 00:45:39 :::