The State Of Maharashtra Through ... vs Shri. N.K. Kirdat
2017 Latest Caselaw 2723 Bom

     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





  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

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





  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

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

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