1980 (8) TMI 215 - HC - Indian Laws

Court quashes pay reduction penalty for clerk due to errors in evidence and rules application.

The Court quashed the penalty of pay reduction imposed on the Petitioner, a clerk in the Departmental Telegraph Office, due to errors in considering ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the penalty imposed on the Petitioner.2. Validity of the findings of the Enquiring Officer.3. Consideration of evidence by the Departmental Authorities.4. Application of Rule 18(2) of the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964.5. Omission of properties in the return submitted by the Petitioner under Rule 18(1).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the penalty imposed on the Petitioner:The Petitioner, a clerk in the Departmental Telegraph Office (D.T.O.), Cuttack, challenged the penalty of pay reduction imposed on him. The penalty involved reducing his pay from Rs. 420/- to Rs. 300/- for three years with cumulative effect. The Petitioner sought quashing of this penalty through a writ of certiorari.2. Validity of the findings of the Enquiring Officer:The charges against the Petitioner included possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, acquisition of property without prior sanction, and submission of an incorrect statement of assets and liabilities. The Enquiring Officer found the Petitioner guilty of all charges. However, the Court noted that the findings were based on 'suspicions or mere suppositions' and ignored evidence favorable to the Petitioner, making the conclusions arbitrary and capricious.3. Consideration of evidence by the Departmental Authorities:The Court observed that the Departmental Authorities did not properly consider the evidence. For instance, the Petitioner's income from land was significantly understated by the authorities. The Enquiring Officer excluded a certificate from the local Tahasildar, which indicated a higher income, on procedural grounds. The Court found that the Petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to prove this certificate. Additionally, the Enquiring Officer ignored testimonies and documents supporting the Petitioner's claims about his assets and income.4. Application of Rule 18(2) of the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964:The second charge involved the Petitioner acquiring property without prior sanction, as required under Rule 18(2). The Petitioner argued that he had informed the authorities about the acquisitions and that the properties in his wife's name should not be considered under this rule. The Court agreed, stating that Rule 18(2) restricts acquisitions by the Government servant, not by their family members, unless it is a benami transaction. The Departmental Authorities failed to apply their minds to this aspect.5. Omission of properties in the return submitted by the Petitioner under Rule 18(1):The third charge related to the omission of properties in the return submitted by the Petitioner. The properties in question were in his wife's name. The Court noted that without a finding that these properties were acquired by the Petitioner using his funds, he could not be held guilty of this charge. The Departmental Authorities did not establish that the properties were benami transactions.Conclusion:The Court found that the non-consideration of favorable evidence, admission of inadmissible evidence, and non-application of mind to material aspects resulted in manifest injustice. Therefore, the Court quashed the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the appellate authority. The case was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh disposal according to law, with an opportunity for the Petitioner to be heard. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.