Indrajit Mahanty, J.@mdashIn the present writ application the Petitioner-Surendra Kumar Dhal has sought to challenge, an order dated 23.7.1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 417 of 1992, dismissing the Petitioner''s challenge to an order dated 21.5.1991 removing him from his service pursuant to a departmental proceeding, as well as, the appellate order dated 15.10.1991 rejecting the Petitioner''s appeal,the resultant being that the Tribunal confirmed both the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order of dismissal of the appeal by the appellate authority.
2. The Petitioner was working as E.D.B.P.M. in village Samian Branch Post Office in account with Subrang Sub-Post Office under Bhadrak Division in 1984. By an order dated 6.1.1987 the Petitioner was put off duty and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and a charge sheet was issued on 9.2.1987 under Rule 8 of the E.D. Agents (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964 on the allegation that while the Petitioner was working as E.D.B.P.M. he did not account for an amount of Rs. 300/- in the B.O. account of Samian EDBO, S.B. Account No. 790479 on 30.9.1986 and Rs. 600/- in S.B. Account No. 790524 after 25.2.1986. Pursuant to the aforesaid charge sheet a statutory inquiry was undertaken by the Enquiring Officer and the Enquiring Officer having found the Petitioner guilty of the charges suggested imposition of penalty of removal from service. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiring Officer and imposed penalty of removal from service vide his memo dated 30.11.1988. Thereafter the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director of Postal Services, Sambalpur Region, Sambalpur - O.P. No. 2 against the order of removal from service passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhadrak Division, Bhadrak- O.P. No. 3 and this appeal came to be rejected by the appellate authority, i.e., opposite party No. 2.
3. The Petitioner challenged the order of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order of the appellate authority before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 487 of 1989, wherein the learned Tribunal after hearing the parties on 8.3.1991 quashed the order of removal with liberty to the disciplinary authority to proceed with the proceeding from the stage of supply of a copy of the enquiry report and after giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to make such representation as he may desires concerning the said report. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the learned Tribunal, the departmental authorities supplied a copy of the inquiry report to the Petitioner and continued with the enquiry and after considering the representation dated 29.4.1991 of the Petitioner, ultimately, the disciplinary authority passed the order of removal from service afresh, vide its order dated 21.5.1991.
4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order once again the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority-opposite party No. 2 and the same came to be rejected by the appellate authority vide its order dated 15.10. 1991, whereafter once again the Petitioner moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 417 of 1997 which has been dismissed vide its order dated 23.7.1998 which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application.
5. Mr. Dhalasamanta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, inter alia, advanced a contention that the learned Tribunal has manifestly failed to apply its mind to the fact that the deposit of an amount of Rs. 300/ - had been taken back by the depositor''s messenger and therefore there was no evidence that cash had been entrusted to the Petitioner. His further contention is that the depositor namely, Mani Charan Panigrahi claims to have stated in his deposition that he had sent his Pass Book and Rs. 300/-, i.e., three numbers of hundred rupee currency notes on 30.9.1986 through his brother Shri Nilamani Panigrahi for deposit at Samian Post Office. Learned Counsel submitted that since one of the currency notes was found to be torn by the Petitioner, all the said currency notes were returned to Shri Nilamani Panigrahi in the evening. He further submitted that the evidence of Nilamani Panigrahi, brother of the depositor who had been examined as defence witness admitted that though he had been to Samian Branch Post Office to deposit Rs. 300/- and presented the Pass Book with Rs. 300/- to the Petitioner, the Petitioner had returned the same with the Pas Book as one of the currency notes was found to be in torn condition.
6. Learned Counsel for the Union of India on the other hand while supporting the impugned order of the learned Tribunal, placed reliance upon a copy of the Pass Book annexed as Annexure-A/1 to the counter affidavit and in particular to the entry made on 30.9.1986 which not only indicates that a deposit of Rs. 300/ - was made on the said date but also, in the balance column a sum of Rs. 827.05 was indicated therein. Apart from that the learned Counsel for the opposite parties also placed reliance upon the "application for withdrawal", under Anexure-B/1 which has been stamped by the Samiann Post Office, (i.e., by the Petitioner) which indicates that he had authenticated for the withdrawal of Rs. 400/- and had confirmed the remaining balance of Rs. 427.05. Learned Counsel for the Union of India submitted that the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to the effect that Shri Nilamani Panigrahi (brother of the depositor) had taken back the cash of Rs. 300/- deposited by him is not borne out on record and it is clearly an after thought in order to try to justify the misappropriation committed by the Petitioner. It is submitted that it is well settled in law that witnesses may be but documents cannot and therefore reliance should be placed on documentary evidence, if they are at variance with the oral testimony.
7. In a writ application seeking to challenge to an order in a departmental proceeding it is well settled that, the scope of enquiry is extremely limited to whether the findings are perverse or in a case based on no evidence. In the present case at hand, we find that the Petitioner has denied the entry in the Pass Book dated 30.9.1986 of Rs. 300/-, claiming that he had returned the cash since the currency notes were returned to the brother of the depositor. But the Pass Book clearly indicates that an amount of Rs. 300/- was deposited on 30.9.1986. We fail to appreciate as to how the Petitioner had made an entry in the Pass Book even prior to verifying the currency notes given to him by the depositor. Apart from this the plea of the Petitioner gets totally demolished, on account of Annexure-B/1 under which the depositor had made an application for withdrawal. This withdrawal slip was counter signed by the Petitioner permitting the depositor to seek withdrawal of Rs. 400/- from his savings bank account and further the balance in the Pass Book was indicated to be Rs. 427.05. Adding both the aforesaid entries together the amount comes to Rs. 827.05 and that clearly corroborates the entry made in the Pass Book dated 30.9.1986 wherein ultimately the balance of Rs. 827.05 was indicated therein. Therefore, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted the entry dated 30.9.1986 and deposit of Rs. 300/- was a mistake, then also the Petitioner had a further opportunity to correct the said mistake at the later date, i.e., 28.11.1986, when the depositor came to the Petitioner for counter signing of the application for withdrawal. The Petitioner himself having countersigned the application for withdrawal and having certified the amount sought to be withdrawn and the balance in the savings bank account he thereafter, cannot be permitted to take any stand contrary thereto.
8. We are of the view that the learned Tribunal has clearly dealt with and considered each of the contentions advanced by the Petitioner herein and we are in respectful agreement with the findings established by the learned Tribunal in its order dated 23.7.1998 m O.A. No. 417 of 1992. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons recorded hereinabove, the writ petition: merits no further consideration and the same is dismissed, but in the circumstances without cost.
L. Mohapatra, J.
9. I agree.
