·
Allegations:
Applicant Harjibhai Vaniya allowed Shri Atul P. Bhatt to misuse blank
passbooks, leading to forgery and financial loss to the government. Allowing
Shri Atul P. Bhatt, a Small Savings Agent, to enter the post office counter
against Directorate's instructions. Failing to prevent Bhatt from taking blank
passbooks from the Bhayavadar Sub Post Office. Facilitating Bhatt in committing
fraud by preparing forged passbooks and misappropriating a total sum of
₹41,00,000.
·
Rule 3(2)(i) of CCS
(Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Pertaining to ensuring integrity and devotion
to duty of government servants under one's control.
·
Rule 21(1) & (2) of
the P&T Manual Vol.I Part 1 - Violated by the applicant. Rule
6(2)(b) of POSB (CBS) Manual (SB Order NO.09/2018) - Also cited in the
charges against the applicant
- Penalty:
Recovery of ₹17,41,565 imposed in instalments due to negligence under Rule
16 proceedings.
- The
applicant's appeal against the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority was upheld by the Appellate Authority, which confirmed the
penalty of recovery of ₹17,41,565.
- The
applicant's subsequent revision petition was also rejected. The High Court
allowed a petition to quash the disciplinary order but did not prevent a
regular inquiry from being conducted if deemed necessary.
- The
court set aside the punishment by determining that the decision of the
Disciplinary Authority to dispense with a regular inquiry was arbitrary.
- The
court emphasized that the applicant was not given an opportunity to
present evidence, despite denying negligence, and that the imposition of a
significant financial penalty without a proper inquiry was unjust. "The
huge amount ordered to be recovered in terms of minor penalty is held to
be arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court."
·
The following legal
principles were claimed to have been violated in the disciplinary proceedings
against the applicant:
- Natural
Justice: The applicant was denied a fair opportunity to defend his
case effectively, including the right to examine witnesses relied upon by
the Disciplinary Authority.
- Statutory
Rules Compliance: The inquiry was conducted under Rule 16 instead of
the required full-fledged inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965, which is necessary for serious allegations.
- Evidence-Based
Conclusion: The findings and conclusions reached by the Disciplinary
Authority were argued to be based on insufficient evidence, violating the
principles of fairness and due process.
- Lack
of Evidence: There was no evidence or documentation to substantiate
the claims that the applicant benefited from the alleged misappropriation
of ₹41,00,000.
- Violation
of Natural Justice: The applicant was not given a fair opportunity to
defend himself, including the right to present evidence and challenge the
allegations made against him.
Post a Comment