Facts
The applicant, Sachidananda Patanaik, while working as SPM, Suryanagar SO, was accused of withdrawing Rs. 72,000/- from Smt. Kanakalata Mohanty's account by forging her signature on three different dates: 30.01.2017, 11.02.2017, and 21.01.2017.
Source reference: p.2He later deposited Rs. 66,000/- on 11.04.2017 on his own.
Source reference: p.2Disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, on 26.03.2018.
Source reference: p.2The Inquiry Officer (IO) submitted a report on 28.03.2019, holding the charge as proved.
Source reference: p.2The applicant sought time to submit a reply, but this was rejected by the Disciplinary Authority (DA) on the grounds of deliberate non-cooperation and impending retirement on 30.04.2019.
Source reference: p.2-3The DA imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on 24.04.2019.
Source reference: p.3The applicant's appeal on 10.06.2019 and a subsequent appeal on 21.10.2019 were rejected on 18.12.2019.
Source reference: p.3The applicant filed the present OA seeking to quash the charge sheet, the orders of the DA and Appellate Authority (AA), and to be treated as normally superannuated.
Source reference: p.3The respondents contended that the proceedings followed due process and natural justice, and highlighted that the applicant avoided inquiry sittings repeatedly on grounds of illness despite being noticed, without producing evidence of sanctioned medical leave or incapacitation.
Source reference: p.5-6, p.8The respondents also noted the applicant's involvement in another fraud case of Rs. 14,04,330/-, for which an FIR and certificate case were filed.
Source reference: p.6Issues
1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the consequent punishment of dismissal from service violated the principle of audi alteram partem or any procedural rules.
Source reference: p.42. Whether the Inquiry Officer was justified in proceeding ex parte given the applicant's consistent non-appearance due to alleged illness.
Source reference: p.4, p.83. Whether the charge sheet was vague or lacking specificity.
Source reference: p.4-54. Whether the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate or unwarranted given the nature of the misconduct.
Source reference: p.9, p.12Law Applied
The court primarily applied Rule 14(20) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, which grants the Inquiry Officer the power to hold an inquiry ex parte if the Government servant fails or refuses to comply with the provisions, including non-appearance despite notice.
Source reference: p.7-8It also referenced the principles established by the Supreme Court in Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC Vs. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SCC 605, emphasizing that honesty and integrity are paramount for employees in positions of trust dealing with public money, and misconduct in such cases must be dealt with "iron hands".
Source reference: p.9Further, the court relied on Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur Vs. State Bank of India and another, (2005) 1 SCC 13, which posits that employees dealing with depositors' money must maintain the highest standards of honesty and integrity.
Source reference: p.10a view reiterated in State Bank of India and another Vs. Bela Bagchi and others, (2005) 7 SCC 435.
Source reference: p.10The scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings was drawn from B.C. Chaturvedi Vs Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, and Union of India Vs P Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, which limit the court/tribunal's role to ensuring compliance with rules of natural justice, examining if findings are based on some evidence, and refraining from re-appreciating evidence or interfering with the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks the conscience.
Source reference: p.11-12Reasoning
The court found no violation of natural justice or procedural irregularities.
Source reference: p.5It noted that the applicant was given ample opportunities to attend the inquiry sessions on multiple dates (11.07.2018, 20.07.2018, 02.08.2018, 06.01.2019, 15.02.2019, and 26.02.2019) but consistently failed to appear, citing illness.
Source reference: p.5-6, p.7Crucially, the applicant did not produce any evidence of sanctioned medical leave or proof of being bedridden, which would justify his non-appearance.
Source reference: p.8Therefore, the Inquiry Officer's decision to proceed ex parte was deemed consistent with Rule 14(20) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
Source reference: p.7-8The court upheld the IO's finding that the account holder, Smt. Kanakalata Mohanty, testified against the applicant, confirming that she did not withdraw the amount and did not deposit Rs. 66,000/-, which was corroborated by other witnesses.
Source reference: p.8-9The applicant failed to contradict these findings with material evidence in his appeals or the OA.
Source reference: p.9Considering the gravity of the charge, particularly for an official in a position of trust handling public money, the court affirmed that such misconduct merits strict action, aligning with Supreme Court precedents on integrity in financial transactions.
Source reference: p.9-10The court, adhering to the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, found no reason to re-appreciate evidence or interfere with the findings, as there was legal evidence to support the conclusions and no procedural infirmity.
Source reference: p.11-12Holding
The court dismissed the O.A. as being devoid of merit.
It held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with rules and natural justice, and the Inquiry Officer was justified in proceeding ex parte.
Source reference: p.7-8The court found no ground to interfere with the punishment of dismissal from service, given the gravity of the charges involving fraud and breach of trust by an official handling public money, as such matters require "iron hands".
Source reference: p.9-10, p.13The order of the DA and AA were upheld.
Source reference: p.9, p.13Original Court PDF
Sachidananda PatanaikvsUnion of India and Others [O.A.No. 260/0004 of 2021]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in