Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the judgment and order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellants.
Brief Facts:
The respondent was serving as a Postal Assistant. While he was working as SPM Veppur SO during the period from 2004 to 2007, he committed fraud by way of fraudulent withdrawal in 85 RD accounts and by way of non-credit of deposits in 71 RD accounts and defrauded a sum of Rs.16,59,065/-. The respondent admitted the fraud in his defence representation. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of ‘removal’ from service vide memo dated 19.01.2011, having found that the offence committed by the charged official – respondent herein was grave in nature and retention of such person in the department would further hamper the services rendered to the public. The departmental appeal against the order of removal from service came to be dismissed. The respondent – charged official challenged the order of ‘removal’ before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 26.03.2012, the Tribunal partly allowed the said original application and modified the order of punishment from ‘removal’ from service to that of compulsory retirement on sympathetic ground by observing that as such the delinquent officer himself deposited the entire amount involved and therefore no loss has been caused to the department. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal the department preferred a writ petition before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed a grave error in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. It was contended that both, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have shown undue sympathy to the delinquent officer who committed the fraud and defrauded the huge sum belonging to the RD account holders.
It was urged that merely because the delinquent officer worked for 39 years and the present one was the first misconduct and that the entire amount was deposited cannot be grounds to interfere with the conscious decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority to remove the delinquent officer from service.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that when the Tribunal interfered with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, the High Court was absolutely justified in not interfering with the same. It was urged that the same may not be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. It was also submitted that once the delinquent officer voluntarily deposited the entire amount along with interest even before the departmental enquiry was initiated and thereby no loss has been caused to the department and considering the fact that the delinquent officer had a long service career of 39 years and during the entire career, there was no punishment imposed and now by the order of compulsory retirement, he will get the retiral/pensionary benefits, which otherwise he would not be able to get in view of the order of removal from service.
SC’s Observations:
The issue before the SC was whether the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and modifying/substituting the same from removal to that of compulsory retirement?
SC relied upon the case of Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. & Others v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, where it was held that the jurisdiction of the High Court on the proportionality of the order of departmental authority is limited. It cannot set aside a well-reasoned order only on grounds of sympathy and sentiments. Once it is found that all the procedural requirements had been complied with, courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The superior courts, only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality, however if the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the doctrine would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved.
SC stated that once, a conscious decision was taken by the Disciplinary Authority to remove an employee on the proved misconduct of a very serious nature of defrauding public money, neither the Tribunal nor the High Court should have interfered with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was after considering the gravity and seriousness of the misconduct.
SC stated that merely because the respondent-employee had worked for 39 years and in those years, there was no punishment imposed and/or that he voluntarily deposited the defrauded amount along with penal interest and therefore there was no loss to the Government/Department cannot be a ground to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and substitute the same from removal to that of compulsory retirement.
SC stated that being a public servant in the post office, the delinquent officer was holding the post of trust. Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “both, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have exceeded in their jurisdiction in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and to substitute the same to that of compulsory retirement. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the order passed by the Tribunal substituting the order of punishment from removal to that of compulsory retirement cannot be sustained and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside.”
Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v. M. Duraisamy
Bench: J. and M.R. Shah and J. B.V. Nagarathna
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2665 OF 2022
Decided on: 19th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
