2015 (10) TMI 2726 - HC - Customs

Punishment and penalty imposed on petition - it was alleged that petitioner was responsible for misappropriation of cash and that the petitioner has failed to perform his duties as Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) in terms of Rule 13 of the Central Government Accounts (Receipts of Payments) Rules, 1983 - The contention of the petitioner is that Mr. Simon was an administrative Officer of his equivalent rank, and was involved in similar offence but punishment on Simon is meager as compared to him. Held that - It is no doubt true that one Mr. Simon was also held responsible for such misappropriation. Separate enquiry was conducted against him and he was also punished Merely because, the lesser punishment is imposed on him, it cannot be said that the Disciplinary Authority ought to have imposed the same punishment on the petitioner also. The punishment depends on the gravity of the proved charge. Since, it is found that the petitioner has not maintained a separate account for non-Government money related to recovery from salary of the staff not verified the daily balance; not recovered cash and as such he did not keep the cash in safe custody on day to day basis, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly concluded that the petitioner is liable for punishment as imposed by it. The Disciplinary Authority has also concluded that Simon being the Cashier, he was also jointly responsible, but the gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner is on the higher side as compared to Simon s misconduct. Since, we find that the sentence imposed on the petitioner is just and proper and as the said order is rightly confirmed by the central Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, no interference is called for - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Misappropriation of cash by a government servant leading to disciplinary action and reduction of pension.
2. Dispute regarding joint accountability for misappropriation and proportionality of penalty imposed.

Issue 1 - Misappropriation of cash and disciplinary action:
The petitioner, an Assistant Chief Accounts Officer, faced charges of failing to ensure proper remittance of deducted amounts from staff salaries towards various heads. An enquiry found him and another officer jointly responsible for misappropriating Rs. 3,46,398. The petitioner was accused of lacking integrity and devotion to duty, leading to disciplinary action under the Conduct Rules and Appeal Rules. Despite being given opportunities to defend himself, the Disciplinary Authority found the charges proved and reduced the petitioner's pension to the minimum admissible level under the Pension Rules. Additionally, 50% of the misappropriated amount was to be recovered from his gratuity.

Issue 2 - Dispute over joint accountability and penalty proportionality:
The petitioner challenged the disciplinary order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, arguing that a joint enquiry with the other officer should have been conducted. The petitioner claimed innocence, attributing the misappropriation solely to the other officer. However, the Tribunal upheld the penalty, emphasizing that the petitioner failed in his duties as a Drawing and Disbursing Officer. The Tribunal noted that while the other officer was also held responsible, the gravity of the petitioner's misconduct was higher. Therefore, the imposed penalty was deemed appropriate and justified. The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's plea for interference, upholding the disciplinary action and confirming the penalty.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, denying the petitioner's writ petition and dismissing the case.