Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
1. As it appears from the record, the applicant Sri Purusottam Sahoo was working as Branch Post Master of Gaham B.O from 17.02.1995 to
22.07.2016. On the basis of a complaint dated 04.07.2016 of one Sri Kumar Sahoo of Gaham, Talcher regarding wrong entry in Rural Postal Life
Insurance (RPLI) policy No. R-OR-EA-663517, the O/S Mails on 08.07.2016 verified the RPLI premium receipts with concerned B.O. records and,
prima facie, it was found that the applicant did not account for the RPLI premia in respect of RPLI Policy No. R-RO-EA-663517 in BO/Govt.
Accounts and misappropriated the RPLI premia amount. Accordingly, the applicant was placed under off duty by the IP, Talcher vide his Memo No.
PF/P.Sahoo/GDS BPM, Gaham BO dated 22.07.2016 ratified by competent authority, i.e. SPOs, Dhenkanal, vide memo dated 03.08.2016.
1.1 Further, during verification of work, it came to the notice that the applicant committed misappropriation amounting to Rs.314683.00 (Rupees three
lakh fourteen thousand six hundred eighty-three only) from 69 RPLI Policies on various dates thereby causing loss to government to the tune of Rs.
4,45,071.41 (Principal-Rs.314683.00 + NI- Rs.99708.78 + PI- Rs.30679.63). Criminal case was also registered against him at Samal Barrage Police
Station vide P.S. Case No. 0116 dated 28.11.2017.
1.2 The applicant was also proceeded departmentally under Rule-10 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules vide Memo No. F7-2/2016-2017/Disc-1
dated 27.11.2017. The applicant submitted his reply on 13.12.2017 stating therein that the amount of misappropriation stated in Article I to V comes to
Rs. 24,774/- whereas in the FIR submitted before the police station, the same is shown as Rs. 60,080/- and again it has been stated that he does not
understand as to how Rs., 4,53,000/-has been recovered from him. It has further been stated that he had admitted the silly mistake and repaid the
amount at Govt. account making good of the pecuniary loss caused to the department. Therefore, applicant has prayed for taking a lenient view in the
matter. Having not satisfied, IO/PO were appointed to inquire into the matter vide Memo dated 15.01.2018.
1.3 The Applicant nominated one Sri Prafulla Kumar Sahoo, retired SPM, Dhenkanal College SO to act as his Defence Assistant. The Inquiring
Authority submitted its report vide letter dated 23.12.2019 finding all the five charged proved. Applicant submitted his defence representation on
11.01.2020. The Disciplinary Authority (DA) after considering the entire records of the proceedings, vide order dated Memo No. F7-2/2016-
2017/Disc-I dated 04.02.2020 ordered for removal from service. Applicant preferred appeal on 30.06.2020. The Appellate Authority (AA) rejected
the appeal vide order dated 20.09.2021. Thus, impugning and challenging the aforesaid order of DA vide Memo No. F7-2/2016-2017/Disc-I dated
04.02.2020 and order of AA dated 20.09.2021, the applicant has come before this Tribunal in the instant OA seeking to quash order of suspension, the
memorandum of charges 27.11.2017, Inquiry report dtd. 23.12.2019, order of DA dtd 04.02.2020, order of AA dtd.20.09.2021 and to direct the
respondents to reinstate him in service with effect from the date he was placed under suspension with all service and financial benefits treating the
period from the date of order of suspension till the date of dismissal as duty for all purposes on the grounds as under:
(a) Since the applicant has already deposited the amount, there was no pecuniary loss caused to the government and, therefore, question of
misappropriation of money does not arise;
(b) The DA imposed the punishment without taking into consideration the written brief submitted by him;
(c) The IO became biased in conducting inquiry in absence of AGS, who was absent due to accident;
(d) He was denied the principle of natural justice by not supplying the additional document sought by him;
(e) The depositor was not called upon and examined by the IO;
(f) The findings of the IO is unreasoned;
(g) The AA rejected the appeal without considering the pointes raised by him in his appeal;
(h) The punishment of dismissal, when the applicant already deposited the amount, is harsh and disproportionate.
2. Respondents filed their counter contesting/objecting the stand taken by the applicant in the OA. Ld. Counsel for the respondents in course of
hearing by reiterating the stand has submitted that none of the stand taken by the applicant is of any help to him because he has admitted the charge
and deposited the misappropriated amount.
The applicant has also filed rejoinder.
3. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the records.
4. The DoP&T issued OM No. 134/1/81-AVD-I dated 13.07.1981 stating inter alia as under:
“As is well known and settled by courts, disciplinary proceedings against employees conducted under the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, or
under other corresponding rules, are quasi-judicial in nature and as such, it is necessary that orders in such proceedings are issued only by the
competent authorities who have been specified as disciplinary/appellate/reviewing authorities under the relevant rules and the orders issued by such
authorities should have the attributes of a judicial order. The Supreme Court, the case of Mahavir Prasad Vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1970 SC 1302),
observed that recording of reasons in support of a decision by a quasi-judicial authority is obligatory as it ensures that the decision is reached according
to law and is not a result of cap-rice, whim or fancy, or reached on ground of policy or expediency. The necessity to record reasons is greater if the
order is subject to appeal.
2. However, instances have come to the notice of this Department where the final orders passed by the competent disciplinary/appellate authorities do
not contain the reasons on the basis whereof the decisions communicated by that order were reached. Since such orders may not conform to legal
requirements, they may be liable to be held invalid, if challenged in a court of Law. It is, therefore, impressed upon all concerned that the authorities
exercising disciplinary powers should issue self-contained speaking and reasoned orders conforming to the aforesaid legal requirements.
3. Instances have also come to notice where, though the decisions in disciplinary/appellate cases were taken by the competent disciplinary/appellate
authorities in the files, the final orders were not issued by that authority but only by a lower authority. As mentioned above, the disciplinary/appellate/
reviewing authorities exercise quasi-judicial powers and as such, they cannot delegate their powers to their subordinates. It is therefore, essential that
the decision taken by such authorities are communicated by the competent authority under their own signatures, and the order so issued should comply
with the legal requirements as indicated in the preceding paragraphs. It is only in those cases where the President is the prescribed
disciplinary/appellate/ reviewing authority and where the Minister concerned has considered the case and given his orders that an order may be
authenticated by an officer, who has been authorized to authenticate orders in the name of the President.â€
5. We have examined the order vide Memo No. F7-2/2016-2017/ Disc-I dated 04.02.2020 of the DA wherein the DA ordered as under:
“In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is hereby ordered that Shri Purusottam Sahoo, GDSBPM, Gaham, B.O. (now under put off duty) in
account with Talcher MDG “be†dismissed from the engagement of GDS with immediate effect.â€
6. No evidence has been produced nor it is the case of the Respondents in the pleadings or in course of hearing that any such order of removal was
issued subsequent to the order of the disciplinary authority dated 04.02.2020. The power is vested with the DA to issue the order of punishment and
the DA cannot direct to some other authority to issue the order of punishment because it will amount to sub-delegation of power, which is de hors the
rules. It is a well known principle that once an order is passed after giving lawful consideration to matter, his duty or authority of the DA would come
to an end, in other words, the authority concerned became functus officio. In view of the above, the order of disciplinary authority does not meet the
requirement of the procedure provided under the Rules. Thus, without any valid order, the Applicant has been kept out of his service.
7. Similarly, power is conferred on the appellate authority under Rule 27 to consider the appeal preferred by an employee against the order of
punishment imposed by disciplinary authority; wherein it is provided inter alia that in the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the
penalties specified in rule 11 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rules, the appellate authority shall consider whether the procedure laid
down in these rules have been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution
of India or in the failure of justice; whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record; and whether the
penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe. But even on microscopic examination of the order of the Appellate
Authority dated 20.09.2021, we find that the AA rejected the appeal preferred by the applicant, without considering the above aspects of the matter
viz that the order of the disciplinary authority on the face of the language used therein is not an order of punishment in the eyes of law rather is an
order directing some other authority to issue punishment order. Hence, it can safely be established that the order of rejection passed by the Appellate
Authority is without due application of mind.
8. Although number of collateral issues had been raised by the parties, we deem it appropriate not to opine on the same at this stage in view of the
discussions that the order of DA is no order in the eyes of law. Since, this aspect is silent in the order of the Appellate Authority, the order of the AA
dated 20.09.2021 is hereby quashed. As a consequence, the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the matter in accordance
with law. The period from the date of the order of the DA till the date of the order to be passed by the AA afresh, shall be decided by the Appellate
Authority. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. In the result, with the observations and directions made above, this OA stands disposed of. But no order as to costs.