G.George Paracken, Member (J) - (1.) THE Applicant has challenged the order of the Disciplinary Authority dismissing him from service and the orders of the Appellate Authority and the Revisionary Authority upholding the said order. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondents have held an enquiry against the Applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Articles of Charge framed against him and conveyed to him, vide Memo No. F -4/4/2002 -03/Disc dated 24.12.2004, are as under: - Article -I That the said Shri Nand Lal Ahirwar (also known as Nand Lal) while working as SB counter Assistant Jhansi Kutchery Sub Post Office on 24.10.2002 made a forged withdrawal as detailed below: - Thus the said Shri Nand Lal Ahirwar is alleged to have violated the provisions of the following rules: Rule -33(5) of Post Office savings Bank Manual Vol. I. Rule 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article -II That the said Shri Nand Lal Ahirwar while working as SB Counter Asstt. Jhansi Kutchery sub Post Office on 12.12.02 and 07.02.03 received the following amounts on the dates noted against each from the depositors of under mentioned RD accounts for depositing the same into their RD Accounts. But the said Sri Nand Lal Ahirwar did not account for the above amounts into post office accounts on respective dates violating the provisions of departmental rules. Thus said Sri Nand Lal is alleged to have violated the provisions of following rules: - Rule -106 read with Rule -31 of Post Office Saving Bank Manual Vol. I. Rule -3(1)(i)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article -III That the said Sri Nand Lal Ahirwar while working as PA Lalitpur HO was found in acute intoxicating condition on 17.11.2004 in Lalitpur HO (duty period). By acting as above, Sri Nand Lal Ahirwar acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and he is alleged to have infringed the provisions of the following rules. (i) Rule 3(1)(iii) and 22 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
(2.) AFTER a detailed enquiry was held in the matter, the Enquiry Officer, vide his report dated 12.04.2005, held that all the aforesaid three charges leveled against the Applicant have been proved as per the statements of the witnesses made during the enquiry proceedings. The relevant part of the said report reads as under: - Analysis From the statement of witnesses and the documents it is clear that the above Charge -I that Shri Nand Lal Ahirwar effected withdrawal of Rs. 20,000/ - on 24.10.2002 in a fake manner and on receipt of complaint from Smt. Sahu gave the money to her got executed Ex. Kh. -I from her. Embezzlement of Rs. 1500/ - from three accounts as in Charge No. 2 is clear as per the statement of witnesses. Charge mentioned as per Article 3 of the Charge Memo is also cleared from the statements of witnesses and on the basis of Exhibits that Shri Nand Lal had consumed liquor while on duty in the post office. Conclusion All the three charges leveled on the charged official are proved as per statement of witnesses and Exhibits K -I to K -23. After considering the aforesaid report of the Enquiry Officer and the representation of the Applicant against the same, the Disciplinary Authority, vide its Order No. F -4/4/200 -03/Disc. dated 28.02.2007, imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect. The relevant part of the said order is reproduced as under: - I have carefully, examined the charge sheet, enquiry report, relevant records and his defence representation referred to above and facts and circumstances of the case and noticed as under: - The charged official says that according to rule -14(11) of CCS (CCA), Rules, 1965, the affidavit filed by Smt. Vidya Devi Sahu should be supplied to him as early as possible and in any case not later than 3 days before the commencement of the examination of the witnesses on behalf of the disciplinary authority but the same was not supplied to him and as such the enquiry was conducted without following prescribed procedure, which is against the natural justice. Perusal of above provision clearly shows that statements of the prosecutions witnesses must be furnished to the CO before the commencement of the examination of the prosecution side witnesses, i.e., the witnesses to be produced on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. The affidavit of Smt. Vidya Devi Sahu depositor is not the statement of any prosecution witnesses so supply of it before the commencement of the examination of witnesses on behalf of Disciplinary Authority was not necessary. Further, the supply of affidavit of Smt. Vidya Devi Sahu depositor (PW -10) was made to CO and it was made as defence documents as (Kha -01) while cross examining of the said Smt. Vidya Devi Sahu on 11.03.2005. In view of this the argument put forth by the CO is not acceptable. Further, the CO says that Smt. Vidya Devi Sahu depositor has admitted her signatures on the warrant of payment as well as to have received Rs. 2000/ - as is evident from her affidavit (Exd -Kha -I). But on perusal of deposition of Smt. Vidya Devi Sahu (PW -10) dated 11.03.2005, it clearly shows that she admitted not to have withdrawn Rs. 2000/ - from her a/c on the basis of SB -3 of the a/c (Ex. ka -6), her complaint (Exp. ka -5), warrant of payment (Exp. Ka -9) her preliminary statement (Exp. ka -10) as well as her passbook (Exp. ka -8) which were produced as prosecution side documents, while examining her as prosecution witness. In cross -examining she admitted to have given her affidavit (Ex. Khas -I) but she also says that she received her withdrawal amount at her home after lodging her complaint. The CO further alleges that his defence Assistant was not relieved to participate in the enquiry on 28.02.2005 and 11.03.2005 while the daily order sheet dated 28.02.2005 clearly shows that Shri S.K. Khare defence Assistant attended the enquiry on 28.02.2005. Besides it on 11.3.2005 Sri Nand Lal CO himself vide his application dated 11.3.2005 requested IO to continue the enquiry in the absence of his defence Assistant Sri S.K. Khare. These facts have been confirmed on the daily order sheet dated 11.3.2005 by the IO, PO and CO putting their signatures thereon. In the light of above noted facts the allegation of the CO is not correct. Further the allegation of the CO that Sri V.P. Sharma his defence witness was dropped in enquiry without any valid reasons is also not correct as Sri V.P. Sharma was dropped as per his (CO) applications dated 15.3.2005 wherein he categorically admitted that he (CO) has personally contacted Sri V.P. Sharma and Sri Sharma is not willing to participate in the enquiry as his defence witness considering these facts, the IO dropped Sri V.P. Sharma as defence witnesses as is evident from daily order sheet dated 15.3.2005. Had this been done against the consent of the CO, the CO would have complained against the IO but he failed to do this at that time. In view of this the allegation of the CO is not acceptable at this belated stage. Further, charge as to be under influence of wine intoxicating during the duty hours has also been proved from the depositions of S/s Ratan Lal Offg. PM Lalitpur dated 9.2.2005, M.P. Birthare PA Lalitpur HO on 9.2.2005, R.K. Kushwaha PA Lalitpur HPO dated 9.2.2005, A.K. Jain APM Lalitpur HO dated 14.2.2005 and Sri V.K. Gupta, SDI Mauranipur dated 19.7.2005 of the prosecution witnesses. All these prosecution witnesses in their depositions have confirmed that Sri N.L. Ahriwar CO was intoxication of wine on 17.11.2004. Not only this the CO himself admitted in his written statement dated 17.11.2004 (Exp. Ka -15) that he was intoxication of wine on 17.11.2004. Now he says otherwise which is not acceptable. Further, the CO says that charges have been proved on the basis of suspicion but it is not so. All the charges have been proved on the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced during the course of enquiry. Sri Nand Lal Ahirwar CO again and again alleges, in his defence representation that full opportunities were not given to him during the course of enquiries while full opportunities were given to him during the course of enquiry. However, he urgently failed to refute why he did not make withdrawal entry of Rs. 2000/ - in the passbooks of Jhansi Kty. PO SB a/c No. 425930 (Exp. Ka -8) on 24.10.2002. Similarly he also failed to explain as to why he did not account for deposited amount in passbooks of Jhansi Kty. Post Office RD a/c No. 137380, 137381 and 138074, i.e., Exp. (Ka -19) and Exp (KA -20) on 12.12.2002, 12.12.2002 and 7.2.2003 respectively. He himself admitted to have committed these irregularities in his statement dated 10.7.2003 (Exp. Ka -Ka -14). He actually committed fraud from these a/cs. which has been proved on the basis of the documentary evidence and as such he has nothing to disprove it. He was intoxication of wine on 17.11.2004. Now he says otherwise which is not acceptable. From the above discussion I find that the charges leveled against the charged official stand proved and he cannot plead innocent as is also evident from the relevant records and documents, considering the gravity of charge I am of the considered view that retention of the charged official in service will be against overall public interest and he deserves server punishment. Contextually, I, R.B. Mishra, Sr. Suptd. of Post Offices Jhansi Dn. Jhansi under the powers conferred under rule -12(2)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 hereby award under Rule -11(ix) ibid the penalty of dismissal from service of Sri Nand Lal Ahirwar PA Lalitpur HPO with immediate effect.
(3.) THE Applicant made appeal dated 05.04.2007 against the aforesaid order stating that the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority has done grave injustice to him. However, the Appellate Authority, vide its order dated 23.08.2007, rejected his appeal. The Applicant submitted a revision petition dated 29.09.2007 against the aforesaid orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2008.;