Rameshchandra Somabhai Rana vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 2117 Guj

    C/SCA/20689/2017                           JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2022




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20689 of 2017


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA                                 Sd/-

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE                               Sd/-

================================================

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be                       No
     allowed to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                        No

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy              No
     of the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question              No
     of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
     of India or any order made thereunder ?

================================================
          RAMESHCHANDRA SOMABHAI RANA
                          Versus
              UNION OF INDIA & 2 other(s)
================================================
Appearance:
MR. MANOHAR NAVANI(6349) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DEVANG VYAS(2794) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
      and
      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE


                               Page 1 of 7

                                                    Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:04:02 IST 2022
    C/SCA/20689/2017                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2022




                  Date : 23/02/2022
                  ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Manohar Navani for the petitioner and learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. Devang Vyas with learned Advocate Mr. Siddharth Dave for the Respondents at length.

2. The challenge in this Special Civil Application is addressed to order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Original Application No.225 of 2014, dismissing the same on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

2.1 Before the Tribunal, what was called in question were the charge-sheet dated 14.02.2011 and orders dated 08.05.2003, 03.02.2004, 10.08.2004 and 01.04.2013. Order dated 08.05.2003 amongst the aforementioned orders was the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner pursuant to the departmental inquiry. The rest of the orders were passed by the Appellate Authority, Revisional Authority and Reviewing Authority respectively confirming the order of the dismissal.

3. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner in respect of certain charges. The petitioner was working as sub Post Master. Three charges were levelled against him. As per the first charge, it was averred that he committed misconduct by abusing his office position by misusing the office premises and

C/SCA/20689/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2022

office telephone during the office hours for running Matka business by providing booking number and the address of the office. The second charge related to purchase of a roof of house for Rs.80,000/- at Sarkhej village, which was not intimated to the authorities as required under the relevant Central Services Conduct Rules. The third charge was in respect of irregular and illegal dealing with Kisan Vikas Patra of the customer having total face value of Rs.2,50,000/- and maturity value of which was Rs.5,00,000/- in violation of Rule 14 (1)(2) of Post Office Savings Manual.

3.1 At the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of two charges out of three above. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the Inquiry officer to record that the charges were of grave and serious nature, not expected from a Government servant. It was noted that the petitioner abused his official position and misused the office premises as well as telephone number during office hours for transacting illegal business of 'Matka number booking'. It was further found that the petitioner misused the amount encashed from the Kisan Vikas Patra. It was also found that the delinquent had employed a person for his own work and he was paid salary.

3.2 It was concluded by the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority, on the basis of the evidence in the domestic inquiry that gross misconducts were committed in handling heavy monetary transactions in addition to misuse of office premises and

C/SCA/20689/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2022

official telephone number for Matka business. It was observed that it was a stigma on the postal department and consequently, the penalty of dismissal was imposed. The Appellate authority, Revisional Authority and the Reviewing Authority all endorsed to the punishment of dismissal.

3.3 It was those orders, when challenged before the Tribunal, the challenge was delayed by almost 9 years after reckoned from the rejection of the review application. Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 provides for limitation contemplating clearly that beyond the time of one year, as contemplated in sub clause (a) or beyond the period of six months, as provided in sub clause (a) as the case may be, the application shall not be entertained by the Tribunal. The Original Application of the petitioner came to be dismissed.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that there also was filed Special CBI Case No.37 of 2005 in respect of similar charges against the petitioner, in which the petitioner was acquitted. He proceeded to read and submit about the findings recorded by the CBI Court while assailing the order of the Tribunal. He further submitted that the acquittal was to be decisive factor for imposition of penalty in departmental inquiry. He reiterated the grounds raised in the memorandum of the Special Civil Application.

4.1 On the other hand learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the realms of departmental inquiry and criminal

C/SCA/20689/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2022

proceedings are different. He submitted that even otherwise, the CBI Court had acquitted the petitioner giving benefit of doubt and that it could not be said that the acquittal was on merits. Be as it may.

5. It was erroneous on the part of the petitioner to rely on the aspect of criminal proceedings before the CBI Court and order therein to justify or otherwise to challenge the order of dismissal passed pursuant to the departmental inquiry. In Govind Das Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., (1997) 11 SCC 361, the Supreme Court reiterated that the departmental inquiry and criminal trial stand on different pedestals. The standard of proof in both are different and the rules of evidence also read differently. It was held that mere acquittal from criminal case would not warrant setting aside the order of termination of service on the same charge. It was stated that the standard of proof in the departmental inquiry was not the same as that of in criminal trial.

5.1 Adverting to the moot point of merit of challenge of dismissal order before the the Tribunal, as noticed above, the petitioner challenged the same after delay of 9 years. The Tribunal noted that even as there was such gross delay, no separate application for condonation of delay was moved and the Original Application was straightway filed.

5.2. The Tribunal observed thus,

"As pointed out the application is clearly time barred and not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. On this ground alone the

C/SCA/20689/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2022

application deserves to be dismissed. In so far as merits of the case are concerned, we have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sankar Gosh (Supra), wherein it has been clearly laid down that "even if there is identity of charges levelled against the applicant before the criminal court as well as before the Inquiry Officer, an order of discharge or acquittal ........ by a criminal court shall not be a bar to the award of departmental punishment."

5.3. The Tribunal in not countenancing the gross delay of 9 years for which there was no plausible explanation, relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewage Board Vs. T. T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, to underline the principle that the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside while entertaining the plea for redressal of grievance. It was stated that the Court should bear in mind that it was exercising equitable jurisdiction and the stale claims of parties were not liable to be entertained. It was observed that the Court is not expected to give indulgence to indolent persons who compete with Kumbhakarna or for that matter Rip Van Winkle.

5.4 For approaching the Tribunal, section 21 contemplates the period of limitation to be observed. Not only the application of the petitioner was almost delayed by 9 years, it was not even accompanied by any application for condonation of delay much less furnishing any good cause to persuade the Tribunal to entertain the application after such long passage of time.

6. The Tribunal looked into the aspect of delay in

C/SCA/20689/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2022

approaching the Tribunal and further considered the merits of the challenge to the order of dismissal. The departmental inquiry was conducted and two charges were proved to the scrutiny of inquiry officer, which was endorsed to by the Disciplinary authority and came to be further confirmed by the Appellate, Revisional and Reviewing Authorities. Any illegality or irregularity in the inquiry was not noticed.

6.1 We hardly find any reason to entertain the present petition, as no error of whatever nature in the impugned order of the Tribunal could be booked .

7. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

Sd/-

(SAMIR J. DAVE,J) MEHUL B. TUVAR