http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: B.K. SRIVASTAVA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/10/1997

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997 Present:                Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sujata V.Manohar                Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.P.Wadhwa V.C. Mahajan,  Sr.Advs. (Kishore  Kr. Patel,)  Adv. for  Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. for the with him for the appellants. S.C. Agarwal,  Sr.Advs., B.K.  Mishra, Ms.  Shabana and Ejaz Maqbool, advs. with him for the Respondent                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered;      D.P. Wadhwa, J.      Leave granted.      Union of  India is  in appeal.   It is aggrieved by the judgment dated  December 10,  1996  passed  by  the  Central Administrative Tribunal,  Allahabad Bench (for short, short, the ’Tribunal’)  setting aside  the enquiry  report and  the order of  dismissal passed  against the  respondent  by  the Disciplinary Authority.      During the  relevant period, the respondent was working as a  cashier in  the office  of the  Controller of  Defence Accounts (Pensions). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on five charges which were as under:      "Articles of Charges      Article on Charge -1      Shri B.K.  Srivastava, SGA  A/C No.      8262958 while serving as cashier in      the office  of the  CDA  (Pensions)      Allahabad   during    the    period      23.08.81       to        19.04.1984      misappropriated    Rs.63,    790.36      (Rupees sixty  three thousand seven      hundred ninety and paise thirty six      only)  from   public  fund  account      which was  found short  with him at      the time  of surprise check carried      out on  19.04.1984. Thus he did not      maintain  absolute   integrity  and      acted in  a manner  most unbecoming      of a Govt. severing in violating of      rule 3(1)(i)  and 3(1)(iii)  of CCS

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

    (Conduct Rules, 1964).      Article or Charge - II      Shri B.K.  Srivastava, SGA (A/C No.      8262958) while serving as a cashier      in the  office of the CDA (Pension)      Allahabad   during    the    period      23.08.81       TO        19.04.1984      misappropriated        Rs.63,790.36      (Rupees sixty  three thousand seven      hundred ninety and paise thirty six      only)  from   public  fund  account      which was  fund short  with him  at      the time  of surprise check carried      out on  19.04.1984. Thus he did not      maintain  absolute   integrity  and      acted in  a manner  must unbecoming      of a  Govt. servant in violation of      rule 3(1) (i) and 3(1) (iii) of CCS      (Conduct Rules, 1964.      Article of Charges - III      Shri B.K.  Srivastava, SGA (A/C No.      8262958) while serving as a cashier      in the  office of  the CDA (Pension      Allahabad during  the  period  from      23.08.1981 to  19.04.1984, received      a  sum  of  Rs.  36,6000/-  (Rupees      thirty  six  thousand  six  hundred      only)  on   16.04.1984   from   the      Treasurer CDA  (P) CSD  Canteen for      depositing  the   same  in   S.B.I.      Allahabad in  the S.B.A/c  of  unit      canteen (CAS)  CDA  (P)  Allahabad.      Out  of   this  amount  he  neither      deposited a  sum  of  Rs.  16.600/-      (Rupees) sixteen  thousand and  six      hundred only)  in S.B.I. on account      of Canteen (CSD) CDA (P) Allahabad,      nor returned the said amount to the      Treasurer,  CDA  (P)  CSD  Canteen.      thus he  misappropriated a  sum  of      Rs.   16.600/-    Rupees    sixteen      thousand and  six hundred  only)  i      account of  sale  proceeds  of  CDA      (P). CSD Canteen whereby he did not      maintain  absolute   integrity  and      acted in  a manner  most unbecoming      of a  Govt. servant in violation of      Rule 3(1)(i)  and 3(1)(iii)  of CCS      (Conduct) Rules, 1964.      Article of Charges - IV      Shri B.K.  Srivastava, SGA (A/C No.      8262958) while serving as a cashier      in the  office of the CDA (Pension)      Allahabad during  the  period  from      23.08.1981 to  19.04.,1984, did not      hand over  to the Treasurer CDA (P)      Thrift   and   Credit   Cooperative      Society the  total amount  deducted      by him  from the pay and allowances      of the  staff on  the  pay  day  or      Thereafter    on     account     of      cooperative dues  in  lump  sum  on      month to  month basis  but in piece      meal   in   arrears,   whereby   he      misappropriated   society’s    dues

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    amounting to  Rs. 13,798.95 (Rupees      thirteen  thousand   seven  hundred      eighty nine  and paise  ninety five      only).   Thus he  did not  maintain      absolute integrity  and devotion to      duty and  acted in  a  manner  most      unbecoming of  a Govt.  servant  in      violation of Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii)      and 3(iii)  of CCS (Conduct) Rules,      1964.      Article of Charges - V      Shri B.K.  Srivastava, SGA (A/C NO.      8262958) while serving as a cashier      in the  office of the CDA (Pension)      Allahabad during  the  period  from      23.08.1981 to  19.04.1984, did  not      remit a  sum of  Rs. 2901/- (Rupees      two thousand nine hundred one only)      recovered from  the  staff  of  CDA      (Pensions) Allahabad  on account of      Cooperative  dues  payable  to  the      Thrift   and   Credit   Cooperative      Societies of  other Controllers and      misappropriated the  same.  Thus he      did not maintain absolute integrity      and  acted   in   a   manner   most      unbecoming of  a Govt.  servant  in      violation    of    Rule    3(1)(i),      3(1)(iii) of  CCS  (Conduct)  Rule,      1964."      Since  there   was  criminal  prosecution  against  the respondent on  the first  charge,  the  enquiry  proceedings relating to  that charge  were stayed.   The enquiry officer held the  charges two to five proved against the respondent. On the  basis of the enquiry report, by order dated June 13, 1988 passed  by the  Controller General of Defence Accounts, the Disciplinary  Authority, the  respondent was imposed the penalty of  dismissal from  service w.e.f. July 8, 1988. the respondent appealed.    His  appeal  was  dismissed  by  the Secretary (Defence  Finance) & FA by order dated October 31, 1989 and  the order  imposing penalty  of dismissal  on  the respondent was affirmed.      The respondent challenged the order of dismissal before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal, while setting aside the enquiry report  and   the  orders   of  Disciplinary  and  Appellate Authorities, directed  that the  respondent  be  treated  as having continued  in service till his date of superannuation and at  the same  time gave liberty to the appellants herein to proceed  against the respondent in a departmental enquiry office onwards.   The  Tribunal held that proper opportunity was not granted to the respondent by the enquiry officer and that the  report of the enquiry officer was not furnished to him and  that there  was no  evidence to sustain the charges against the respondent.      We are,  however, of the view that the Tribunal was not right in  its approach.  It has  acted more  as a  court  of appeal which  it was  not entitled  to do  so. We  have been taken through  the enquiry  proceedings  and  we  find  that numerous adjournments  were granted to the respondent and on many dates  of hearing,  he was  stated to  be on  leave  on account of  ill-health.  Respondent was given opportunity to inspect the  record which he did.  it cannot be said that as he was  not given  photo copies of certain documents, he had been prejudiced in the defence of his case.  After examining the evidence  on record,  the enquiry  officer came  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

conclusion  that   the  charges  stood  proved  against  the respondent. It  is not that there was no evidence was before the enquiry  officer.  In view of the judgment of this Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan [(19910 1 SCC 688], which  was  affirmed  by  the  constitution  Bench  in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. vs. B. Karunakar & Ors. [(1993)  4 SCC 797]. In Ramzan LKhan’s case, this Court held that  non furnishing  of the  report to  the delinquent employee would  be violative  of the  principles of  natural justice rendering the final order invalid but also held that this statement  of law  would have  prospective effect only. The respondent,  therefore, cannot  have any  grievance that the enquiry  report which  is dated  June 29,  1988 was  not supplied to  him and  on  that  account  the  whole  enquiry proceedings stood vitiated.  The Disciplinary Authority duly considered the  report of  the  enquiry  officer  and  after examining whole  of the  enquiry proceedings  was  satisfied that the  charges stood  proved.   He  acceded  the  enquiry report and  "taking into account all aspects of the case and especially the  extreme gravity  of charges  which show that Shri B.K.  Srivastava who  was entrusted  with the sensitive matter of  cash exhibited  complete lack  on  integrity  and misappropriated the  same" Imposed  upon him  the penalty of dismissal  from  service.    The  Appellate  Authority  also examined the  case afresh, considered the contentions of the respondent and by reasoned order was also satisfied that the respondent was  guilty of  the  charges  for  which  he  was imposed the  penalty.   The Appellate Authority did not find any justification for setting aside or modifying the penalty of dismissal from service.      The Tribunal could not sit in appeal against the orders of the Disciplinary and Appellant Authorities in exercise of its powers of Judicial review.  The Tribunal wrongly came to the conclusion that the proceedings conducted by the enquiry officer were violative of the principles of natural justice. Rather we  find too  many opportunities  were given  to  the respondent and  the enquiry  proceedings wee  adjourned from time to  time at  the instance  of the  respondent.    these proceedings started on December 10, 1985 and ended on May 1, 1987 whereafter  enquiry report  was submitted.  On 18 dates when the  proceedings were taken up, the respondent attended only on  five hearings.  It is not a case where there was no evidence on  record.   To illustrate.  Article of Charge-III related to misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 16,6000/- by the respondent.   This  amount was  balance  amount  out  of Rs.36,600/- which  the respondent received on April 16, 1984 from the  controller CDA  (P) CAS Canteen for depositing the same  in  the  Saving  account  of  CSD  Canteen.  That  the respondent  received  this  amount  was  duly  evidenced  by receipt signed  by him.   Counter foil of pay-in-slip of the State Bank  of India  showed that only a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited,  Clearly, the  respondent  kept  the  balance amount of  Rs. 16,6000/-  which  he  misappropriated.    The respondent nowhere  denied that the receipt did not bear his signatures.   With such  being the  state  of  affairs,  the Tribunal could  not say  that there  was no evidence to hold the charges  proved against  the respondent.   The  Tribunal otherwise did  not find  any  illegality  in  the  procedure adopted by  the enquiry  officer or  in the  orders imposing penalty on  the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority and the Order  dismissing the  appeal of  the respondent  by the Appellate Authority.      We find  that fair  treatment had  been  given  to  the respondent in  the enquiry.   There has been lawful exercise of power  by the  Disciplinary  and  Appellate  Authorities.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

Thee has  been no  abuse of  power.  In these circumstances, the Tribunal should have stayed its hands.  It is no part of the function  of the Tribunal to substitute its own decision when enquiry is held in accordance with rules and punishment is imposed  by the  authorities considering all the relevant circumstances and which it is entitled to impose.      We are,  therefore, of  the opinion  that the  Tribunal wrongly exercised  its jurisdiction.    The  impugned  order cannot be sustained.  It is set aside. The appeal is allowed and D.A.  916 of  1989 filed  by the  respondent before  the Central  Administrative   Tribunal,   Allahabad   Bench   is dismissed.  There will be, however, no order as to costs.