Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shailendra Sahedeo Mondkar, was a stamp vendor-postman in the office of Bharat Chamber Post Office, Kalbadevi, Mumbai. He was selected and joined his post on 13th October 1979. From 21st January 1985 to 8th September 1993, he was posted as a departmental stamp vendor at Tajmahal Post Office. On 6th September 1993, three foreign parcels were booked at that post office. In respect of one parcel, the petitioner accepted a sum of Rs.2955/- for postage stamps, prepared in his own handwriting the postal receipt bearing no.188 for Rs.2955/-, but affixed postage stamps worth only Rs.2625/- on the parcel, thereby misappropriating Rs.330/-. A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against him, and the inquiry officer found the charge proved. The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of reduction in pay by two stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect. The petitioner's appeal, revision, and review were rejected. He then filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, which was dismissed on 19th June 2003. Aggrieved, he filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court. The petitioner argued that the punishment was disproportionate and that the findings were based on no evidence. The respondents supported the order. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the findings of the disciplinary authority were based on evidence and the punishment was not disproportionate. The court noted that the petitioner had been given adequate opportunity during the inquiry. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Reduction in Pay - Proportionality - The petitioner, a stamp vendor-postman, was found guilty of misappropriating Rs.330/- by accepting Rs.2955/- for postage but affixing stamps worth only Rs.2625/- on a foreign parcel. The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of reduction in pay by two stages for three years with cumulative effect. The Central Administrative Tribunal upheld the penalty. The High Court held that the punishment was not disproportionate and dismissed the writ petition, noting that the petitioner had been given adequate opportunity and the findings were based on evidence. (Paras 1-6)
B) Service Law - Judicial Review - Scope - The High Court reiterated that in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the court does not sit in appeal over the findings of the disciplinary authority or the tribunal. The court can only interfere if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate or the procedure is vitiated. In this case, the court found no such infirmity. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the punishment of reduction in pay by two stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner was disproportionate to the misconduct of misappropriation of Rs.330/-.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 19th June 2003 and the penalty of reduction in pay by two stages for three years with cumulative effect.
Law Points
- Disciplinary proceedings
- reduction in pay
- proportionality of punishment
- judicial review of administrative action
- standard of proof in departmental inquiries
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (03) 211
Writ Petition No.1512 of 2004
R. M. Lodha, R. S. Mohite
Mr. S.P. Saxena for the petitioner; Mr. D.A. Dubey with Mr. Y.S. Bhate i/b Mr. S.S. Sarkar for the respondent no.1
Shailendra Sahedeo Mondkar
Union of India, Director of Postal Services, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's Original Application against reduction in pay.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 19th June 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, and the orders of reduction in pay and appellate/revisional orders.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the penalty of reduction in pay by two stages for three years with cumulative effect imposed on him for alleged misappropriation of Rs.330/-.
Previous Decisions
The disciplinary authority imposed reduction in pay by two stages for three years with cumulative effect; the appellate, revisional, and reviewing authorities rejected the petitioner's appeals; the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Original Application on 19th June 2003.
Issues
Whether the punishment of reduction in pay by two stages for three years with cumulative effect is disproportionate to the misconduct of misappropriation of Rs.330/-.
Whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are based on evidence and whether the petitioner was given adequate opportunity.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the punishment was disproportionate and that the findings were based on no evidence.
The respondents supported the order of the Tribunal and submitted that the punishment was commensurate with the misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi
The punishment of reduction in pay by two stages for three years with cumulative effect for misappropriation of Rs.330/- by a stamp vendor-postman is not disproportionate. The disciplinary authority's findings were based on evidence, and the petitioner was given adequate opportunity. The High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, does not sit in appeal over the findings of the disciplinary authority or the tribunal unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate or the procedure is vitiated.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, challenges the order dated 19th June 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai.
The petitioner was selected as stamp vendor-postman and joined his post on 13th October 1979.
On 6th September 1993, three foreign parcels were booked at the said post office.
The petitioner in respect of one parcel accepted the sum of Rs.2955/- for the postage stamps; prepared in his own handwriting the postal receipt bearing no.188 for Rs.2955/- and affixed the postage stamps worth Rs.2625/- only on the parcel.
The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of reduction in pay by two stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect.
We do not find any merit in this writ petition. The same is dismissed.
Procedural History
The petitioner was served with a charge sheet for misappropriation of Rs.330/-. A disciplinary inquiry was held, and the inquiry officer found the charge proved. The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of reduction in pay by two stages for three years with cumulative effect. The petitioner's appeal, revision, and review were rejected. He then filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, which was dismissed on 19th June 2003. Aggrieved, he filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 31st March 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
