Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal of Postal Employee for Financial Irregularities and Misconduct: “Punishment Proportionate to the Charges”; Confirms Validity of Disciplinary Proceedings and Jurisdiction of Appellate Authority

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the petitioner’s dismissal from service, upholding the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi. The court found that the disciplinary and appellate authorities had acted within their jurisdiction in imposing the punishment. The key takeaways from the court’s ruling were:

1. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly, adhering to due process and principles of natural justice.
2. The appellate authority had the jurisdiction to enhance the penalty under Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
3. The punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the serious misconduct committed by the petitioner.
4. The petitioner was unable to substantiate claims regarding the alleged fabrication of the death certificate, which was relied upon in the disciplinary proceedings.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s findings, stating: “There is no procedural or substantive error warranting interference by this Court.”

Facts of the Case

• The petitioner was appointed as a Postal Assistant in India Post on 11.09.1981.
• Until 2005, the petitioner was posted as Sub Post Master (SPM) at Jahangirpur.
• On 11.11.2005, the petitioner was transferred to Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh, on administrative grounds.
• On 24.11.2005, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the disciplinary authority under Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
• A charge sheet was issued against the petitioner on 23.03.2006 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, listing the following charges:
  • Charge I: The petitioner withdrew ₹21,342/- from the Time Deposit (TD) account of a deceased account holder, who had expired on 14.09.2004.
  • Charge II: The petitioner permitted deposits exceeding the prescribed limit of ₹1 lakh in a single savings account on multiple occasions, violating the Post Office Savings Accounts Rules, 1981.
• A departmental inquiry was conducted, during which the Enquiry Officer found both charges unproven.
• On 23.02.2006, the order of suspension was revoked.
• However, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) disagreed with the findings and imposed a penalty of reduction in pay by one stage for one year.
• On 22.10.2007, the Appellate Authority (Director Postal Services) enhanced the punishment to dismissal from service, invoking Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
• The petitioner challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed the challenge.
• The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the disagreement note issued by the Disciplinary Authority complied with the law.
2. Whether the Director Postal Services had jurisdiction to enhance the punishment.
3. Whether the death certificate relied upon by the department was unreliable.
4. Whether dismissal from service was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner challenged the disciplinary action and the dismissal order on the following grounds:

1. The disagreement note was not tentative

• The Disciplinary Authority (DA) disagreed with the Enquiry Officer’s findings and issued a disagreement note.
• The petitioner argued that this violated the Supreme Court’s ruling in Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra (1999) 7 SCC 739, which mandates that a disagreement note must be tentative and not final.
• The petitioner claimed that the DA had already made up its mind before hearing the petitioner’s response.

2. Director Postal Services lacked jurisdiction to enhance the penalty

• The petitioner argued that only the Chief Postmaster General (CPMG) or Postal Circle Management Group (PCMG) had the authority to enhance punishments.
• Since the Director Postal Services exercised this power, the petitioner contended that the enhancement of punishment was without jurisdiction.

3. The death certificate relied upon by the department was unreliable

• The petitioner argued that the withdrawal of ₹21,342/- was not fraudulent because the account holder was alive at the time of withdrawal.
• He claimed that the death certificate submitted by the department was fabricated and that the department failed to verify its authenticity.

4. Punishment was disproportionate

• The petitioner contended that even if the charges were proved, dismissal was excessive.
• He argued that depositing amounts exceeding ₹1 lakh in a savings account was not a violation, as the rules only stated that no interest would be paid on excess amounts, but no penalty was prescribed.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Union of India defended the disciplinary action and punishment on the following grounds:

1. The disagreement note complied with natural justice

• The Disciplinary Authority (DA) allowed the petitioner to submit a reply, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.
• The Supreme Court’s ruling in Yoginath D. Bagde was followed, as the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to respond.

2. Director Postal Services had jurisdiction to enhance punishment

• Under Rule 29(1)(v) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the appellate authority (Director Postal Services) had the power to enhance punishments.
• The petitioner failed to show any rule restricting this power to CPMG or PCMG.

3. The death certificate was genuine

• The death certificate was verified by multiple authorities, including the Mail Overseer and Assistant Postal Superintendent.
• The petitioner failed to produce any alternative evidence proving that the account holder was alive at the time of withdrawal.

4. The punishment was justified

• The misconduct was serious, involving financial irregularities and violation of departmental rules.
• The petitioner had allegedly misappropriated ₹10,50,850/- by showing fraudulent discharge of Kisan Vikas Patras.
• The punishment of dismissal was not excessive but commensurate with the gravity of the charges.

Court’s Analysis

1. The disagreement note was valid

• The court found that the disagreement note complied with the principles of natural justice.
• The petitioner was given an opportunity to respond, which satisfied legal requirements.

2. The Director Postal Services had jurisdiction to enhance punishment

• The court held that Rule 29(1)(v) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 empowered the Director Postal Services to enhance punishment.
• The petitioner’s argument that only CPMG or PCMG had this power was rejected.

3. The death certificate was reliable

• The court noted that the official death certificate had been verified by multiple authorities.
• Since the petitioner failed to provide contrary evidence, the court found no reason to doubt its authenticity.

4. The punishment was proportionate

• The court emphasized that financial irregularities in government service require strict penalties.
• Since the misconduct involved public funds, dismissal from service was justified.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court upheld the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition, ruling:

“There is no procedural or substantive error warranting interference by this Court.”

The dismissal from service was held to be lawful and proportionate.

Implications

• Reinforces the power of appellate authorities to enhance punishment under Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
• Highlights the importance of financial integrity in public service.
• Sets a precedent that misappropriation of public funds warrants strict penalties.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Strikes Down CBDT Circular Imposing Time Limit on TDS Refunds: “Excess Tax Deposited Under Section 195 Cannot Be Retained Unlawfully”