The Director General, and Others. Vs. Indra Pal Shukla, and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[mr. justice a.n. venugopala gowda, j.] this petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, praying to quash the impugned order dated 13.8.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent vide annexure - e to the writ petition, under the facts and circumstances of the case.1. by the impugned order dated 27th january, 2010 in original application no. 1173 of 2004 indra pal shukla vs. union of india and others, the central administrative tribunal has partly allowed the oa against the order passed by the president of india, reducing 30% of the pension of the applicant and directing recovery of rs. 53, 194.80 from gratuity on the ground, that the order of acquittal in respect of charge (article 1) by the trial court has not been considered by the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority. the tribunal held in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, as follows:-2. as far as the charge (article 1) referring to the charge of abatement in getting the stock register snatched by the outsider, we find that the order of session court has not been taken into account, which has.....

Judgment:
1. By the impugned order dated 27th January, 2010 in Original Application No. 1173 of 2004 Indra Pal Shukla vs. Union of India and others, the Central Administrative Tribunal has partly allowed the OA against the order passed by the President of India, reducing 30% of the pension of the applicant and directing recovery of Rs. 53, 194.80 from gratuity on the ground, that the order of acquittal in respect of Charge (Article 1) by the trial court has not been considered by the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority. The Tribunal held in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, as follows:-

2. As far as the charge (article 1) referring to the charge of abatement in getting the Stock Register snatched by the outsider, we find that the order of Session Court has not been taken into account, which has recorded categorical finding in rejecting the case of the department. As far as the findings with respect to shortage of stock and loss suffered by the department to the tune of Rs. 53, 194.80 paisa is concerned; same has been affirmed after considering the relevant material in detail. Relevant para-10 of the said order of Commission reads:-

"In the light of their findings and after taking into account all aspects relevant to the case the Commission consider that the charges proved against Shri Inder Pal Shukla the CO constitute grave misconduct and the ends of justice would be met if 30% of the monthly pension is forfeited on a permanent basis and an amount of Rs. 53, 194.40 is recovered from his gratuity. They advise accordingly."

3. We called upon the respondents' counsel to show as to whether shortage in stock register and the loss caused to the Government was on the charge of 'deliberate/intention, manipulative acts of the applicant. Respondents' counsel unable to show anything against the applicant on this score. There is no charge or finding against the applicant that he had deliberately manipulated records so as to cheat or cause loss to the Department, and in turn illegally enrich himself-directly or indirectly.

4. The punishment (awarded to the applicant) is in two parts i.e. recovery of Rs. 53, 194.80 paisa (for loss suffered by the Government) and to forfeit 30% of the monthly pension on permanent basis.

5. In absence of charge or finding of 'cheating' or 'fraud' and in turn causing loss intentionally to the Government, coupled with the fact that the applicant has been acquitted by Sessions Court, forfeiture of 30% of pension (on permanent basis)- is arbitrary and with no justification. It amounts to 'double jeopardy' and opposed to 'fair play' and 'good conscience'.

6. Accordingly, we set aside impugned order to the extent it provides for punishment of 'forfeiture of 30% of monthly pension on permanent basis' and affirm punishment directing recovery of 'Rs. 53, 194.80 paisa from gratuity.'"

7. We have gone through the charges on which the departmental enquiry was initiated in the year 1996. The Charge no. 1 relates to snatching away the stock register and beating up the officers, who were enquiring into the allegations of alleged embezzlement. A first information report was lodged against the respondent-employee registering a criminal case, which was tried as Sessions Trial No. 307/1995 under Sections 332, 353, 333, 427, 596 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. The Sessions Judge, in his judgement of acquittal dated 2.8.1997, recorded the findings that Shri Indra Pal (the petitioner) had left the charge in 1992 and in his place Shri M.A. Siddiqui had taken over the charge, and the department had admitted that there was no case of embezzlement in the stocks. The Sessions Judge further found that on these allegations, there was no question of making any department enquiry, nor any such fact has been mentioned in the first information report, that the departmental enquiry was initiated.

8. Trial court found that there was no material on the record in evidence to show that the accused had made any embezzlement.

9. It is contended by Shri R.B. Singhal that a separate first information report was lodged for embezzlement, in which proceedings have been stayed by the High Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 318 of 2002, and thus the observation of the trial court in the sessions trial, that there was no case for embezzlement nor there is any mention of any such case in the first information report, is incorrect. Shri Singhal further submits that though the loss caused to the Government has been allowed to be recovered the allegations on Article 1 and the charge of embezzlement was sufficient to bring the case within the meaning of grave misconduct or negligence for deduction from pension as a punishment under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.

10. The respondent-employee has retired on 31.7.1999. In the criminal case the charge of snatching the register and beating of the officer, were not proved beyond doubt. The same allegations were also enquired in the departmental enquiry, apart from other allegations with regard to the loss caused to the government.

11. After going through the record we agree with the Tribunal that the effect of the acquittal has not been considered in the departmental enquiry. Where the charge, both in the criminal case as well as in the departmental enquiry, is the same and in which the delinquent employee has been acquitted by the criminal court, it is necessary to serve principles of natural justice and to consider the evidence on which the delinquent employee was acquitted. In the present case, though a mention has been made of the order of the acquittal, which was passed three years before the employee was punished, both the Enquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority has not considered its effect. In the Criminal Case No. 3999/1999 in the matter of embezzlement pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the proceedings have been stayed by this Court.

12. In the facts and circumstances, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, by which it has quashed the punishment order reducing the pension of respondent employee by 30.