Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ramdas Shankarrao Digraskar, was appointed as an Extra Departmental Agent (E.D.A.) on 5.8.1983 and later promoted to Extra Departmental Branch Post Master on 21.2.1994. On 23.7.1990, he was served with a chargesheet under Rule 8 of the E.D.A's (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964, alleging that on 20.1.1990, he paid only Rs.50 to depositor Shri T.C. Khawase but recorded a withdrawal of Rs.150 in the B.O. Account, thereby misappropriating Rs.100. A departmental enquiry was conducted, during which the complainant T.C. Khawase and another witness Dhanraj Ganesh Chaudhari were examined. The petitioner cross-examined the witnesses and submitted a written brief. The Enquiry Officer found the charge proved, and the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed. He then filed Original Application No. 954 of 1996 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Nagpur, which was dismissed on 19.9.2002. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The court considered whether the dismissal was legal and proper. The court noted that the charge was proved through oral evidence and the petitioner's admission that he received the amount. The court held that in departmental enquiries, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court found no violation of natural justice and held that the findings were based on evidence. The court also held that in writ jurisdiction, it cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is perversity or violation of natural justice. The petition was dismissed, upholding the dismissal of the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Standard of Proof - Charge of misappropriation of Rs.100 against an Extra Departmental Agent - The court held that in departmental enquiries, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt - The charge was proved through oral evidence of the complainant and another witness, and the petitioner's admission of receiving the amount - The enquiry was fair and proper (Paras 2-8). B) Service Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself, including cross-examination of witnesses and submission of written brief - No violation of principles of natural justice was found (Paras 5-8). C) Service Law - Judicial Review - Writ Jurisdiction - The court held that it cannot re-appreciate evidence in writ jurisdiction unless there is perversity or violation of natural justice - The findings of the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority were based on evidence and not perverse (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dismissal of the petitioner from service based on a departmental enquiry was legal and proper, and whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing the original application.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 19.9.2002 was upheld, and the dismissal of the petitioner from service was confirmed.
Law Points
- Departmental enquiry
- standard of proof
- preponderance of probabilities
- natural justice
- extra departmental agent
- misappropriation
- chargesheet
- enquiry officer report
- disciplinary authority
- judicial review
- writ jurisdiction
