- (1.) HEARD Shri K. C. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sthalekar appears for the heirs of the delinquent employee, who had died on 31. 7. 2005 and was substituted by his heirs in the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT ).
(2.) THE Union of India and others have challenged the order passed by CAT by which the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application with the findings that there was no evidence against the deceased delinquent employee to establish the charges of fraud of withdrawing the amount of Rs. 57,000/- from an account at post office Baraut. The deceased delinquent employee was charged with influencing other employees involved in a fraud in which a leaf of the cheque book of a closed account in Kutchery post office was used to deposit Rs. 57. 000/- in a new ac count opened at Baraut Post Office, where the petitioner was posted earlier and then withdrawal of the entire amount. It was alleged in the charge-sheet that on the influence and introduction by the deceased delinquent employee the new bank account was opened and that without any clearance, an advice was re ceived from the Head Office on which the amount was credited and, thereafter, withdrawn in two installments namely Rs. 40. 000/- and Rs. 17. 000/- putting the bank to a loss of Rs. 57. 000/ -. The Tribunal found that there was 'no evidenced link the deceased delin quent employee with the allegations made in the charge-sheet. The identification card to open the new account did not bear the signatures of the deceased delin quent employee. The original cheque was not produced and was supposed to have been lost in the process of clearing in the head office and the presence of the deceased delinquent employee at the time of withdrawal was not established. The Tribunal further found that the enquiry officer had clearly stated in his report dated 18th May, 2000 that there was no direct evidence to link the deceased delinquent employee with the charge. There was only circumstantial evidence by way of evidence of the employees of Baraut post office, who had deposed that the new account at Baraut Post Office was opened under the influence of the de ceased delinquent employee. The fraudulent cheque, cheque list and the voucher of the sub post office were not produced in evidence. There was no proof of the deceased delinquent employee's complicity in withdrawals as there was no di rect evidence of withdrawals, and that the charge of opening an account on an application (Form SB3), was also not fully established. The oral evidence only proved that the deceased delinquent employee's influence in opening new ac count in violation of the departmental rules.
(3.) WE have gone through the entire enquiry report, and the evidence annexed by the petitioner along with the writ petition. WE do not find that the conclusion drawn by the CAT are in any way incorrect. The CAT appreciated the entire evi dence and found that there was no evidence to connect the deceased delinquent employee with the allegations constituting the charge. The CAT heavily relied upon the conclusion drawn by the enquiry officer and found that the conclusion drawn by the enquiry officer are by way of surmises and conjectures based on the oral evidence regarding influence exercised by the deceased delinquent employee in opening of the account. Shri K. C. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was circumstantial evidence and that in the departmental enquiry the charges have to be established by 'preponderance of probabilities'. He would submit that the de partment led sufficient evidence to show that the deceased delinquent employee had exercised influence on the employees Baraut branch and oral evidence linked him with the charge. He would submit that the Tribunal should not have gone into the matter as an appellate court and submits that initially the competent author ity had directed punishment of reduction in rank but that the revisional authority taking into account the gravity of the charges enhanced the punishment by dis missal from service.;