Surender Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors

SURENDER KUMAR ... Appellant(s)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

V.S.SIRPURKAR, J.

1. This appeal is at the instance of an employee who was

working as Assistant Supervisor, Military Farm. He was

served with chargesheet wherein it was alleged firstly that

he had misappropriated about 320 Kg. of Soda-bi-carbonate;

secondly, that he had failed to feed the animals in his

charge with the said Soda-bi-carbonate as a result of which

he had jeopardized the health of the animals and thirdly,

that he had willfully disobeyed the lawful orders of his

superior officer. The Officer In-charge ordered him to hand

over all the charge of cattle yard section to Mr. Birbal

Sharma which he failed to do. Regular departmental inquiry

was conducted wherein the delinquent officer was given all

the opportunities to defend himself as also all the

necessary documents were supplied to him and after hearing him in full, he was found guilty on all the three counts.

-2-

He was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement. An

appeal was filed by the delinquent officer against the said

penalty which was dismissed. Hence the delinquent officer

moved the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central

Administrative Tribunal also agreed with the findings as

also the punishment awarded by the department. Further a

writ petition was filed before the Bombay High Court.

However that writ petition was also dismissed.

2. Mr. P.N.Misra, learned senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the delinquent officer firstly urged that there is

some factual mistake in the judgment of the High Court

inasmuch as it is mentioned that the aforementioned 320 Kg.

of Soda-bi-carbonate was found in his "quarter" whereas in

fact the said material was not found in his quarter but was

found in the UPI room. We have seen the orders of the High

Court as well as the authorities below. It is true that

there is a factual error in the High Court's judgment

inasmuch as it is mentioned that the aforementioned material

was found in his quarter. It is also true that the material

was not found in his quarter but in the place of which he

alone was In-charge. Learned counsel further argued that

there was no question of any mis-appropriation inasmuch as the said material was actually not found in his quarter.

Therefore, it could not be said that he misappropriated the

material. It is clear from the record that the concerned

-3-

officer took this material on day-today basis to feed to the

animals on the military farm and instead of feeding the

material to the animals, he stored it in the UPI room which

was exclusively in his possession and under his lock and key

as per the evidence. This would certainly amount to

misappropriation as the said material was meant for the

consumption of the animals on the military farm on day-today

basis and the animals were not given the said material for

their consumption. There could be no explanation on the

part of the delinquent officer why the huge quantity of 320

Kg. of Soda-bi-carbonate was kept in the premises which was

exclusively in his possession. Therefore, we are not

impressed with the contention raised that there was no

misappropriation.

3. Learned counsel further contended that it may amount

to negligence on the part of the appellant and therefore the

punishment of compulsory retirement would be harsh

punishment. Soda-bi-carbonate was meant for the poor

animals and those animals suffered because of the fact that

the Soda-bi-carbonate was not fed to them and 3 animals are reported to have died. Hence the charge No. 2 also stood

fully proved. There can be no dispute about third charge

also which was rightly held established. If that is so the

punishment of compulsory retirement cannot be termed as

"harsh" considering the serious misconduct. We are fully

convinced that the departmental inquiry was conducted

-4-

keeping in view the norms of the natural justice and the

fair play. There is nothing on record to suggest that the

appellant herein was refused any opportunity to represent

himself effectively before the Inquiry Officer or the

Appellate Authority. In fact the only scope in such cases is

to examine the manner in which the departmental enquiry is

conducted. We are satisfied with the enquiry in this case.

We do not find any merit in this appeal, which is

accordingly dismissed.

...................J. (V.S.SIRPURKAR)

....................J. (DEEPAK VERMA) New Delhi, October 21, 2009.