No Leniency To Employee Merely Because He Deposited Defrauded Amount And No Loss Was Caused To Department : Supreme Court

While setting aside the order substituting the removal of an employee to that of compulsory retirement, the Supreme Court observed that punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority can't be substituted merely on grounds that the employee had voluntarily deposited the defrauded amount.

"Being a public servant in the post office, the delinquent officer was holding the post of trust. Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee", the Court said.

A bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna made the observation in Union of India's special leave petition challenging Madras High Court's order confirming the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal modifying the punishment imposed on a postal assistant from dismissal/removal from service to compulsory retirement.

The bench set aside the High Court's impugned judgment and the Central Administrative Tribunal's order and restored the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of removing the delinquent employee from service.

The bench observed that neither the Tribunal nor the High Court considered the nature and gravity of the misconduct committed by the delinquent officer and exceeded in their jurisdiction in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

According to the Bench, once a conscious decision was taken by the Disciplinary Authority to remove an employee on the proved misconduct of a very serious nature of defrauding public money, neither the Tribunal nor the High Court should have interfered with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was after considering the gravity and seriousness of the misconduct.

The bench pointed out that neither the Tribunal nor the High Court found any irregularity in conducting the departmental enquiry or procedural lapses.

While pointing out that the employee himself admitted the charge of having defrauded Rs.16,59,065 deposited the defrauded amount after fraud was detected, the Bench observed that if the fraud hadn't been detected, the respondent employee would probably not have deposited it. 

The bench observed that by such a misconduct/act on the part of the delinquent officer, the reputation of the department had been tarnished.

"What about the loss caused to the department by way of goodwill, name and fame of the department and its reliability amongst the public?" the bench remarked.

Background:

The respondent serving as a Postal Assistant was found to have committed fraud by way of fraudulent withdrawal. When the fraud was detected after investigation, the respondent deposited a total sum of Rs.18,09,041.

The respondent – delinquent officer had admitted the charge and the Inquiry Officer had submitted the report and held all the charges proved.

After a departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of 'removal' from service having found that the offence committed by the respondent was grave in nature and retention of such person in the department would further hamper the services rendered to the public. The departmental appeal against the order of removal from service was also dismissed.

When the order of 'removal' was challenged before the Tribunal, the Tribunal partly allowed plea and modified the order of punishment from 'removal' from service to that of compulsory retirement on sympathetic ground by observing that as such the delinquent officer himself deposited the entire amount involved and therefore no loss has been caused to the department.

The Tribunal also noted that the delinquent officer had completed nearly 39 years of service and has not suffered any other punishment other than the present one.

Case Title: Union of India and Ors vs M. Duraisamy, CA 2665/2022 

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 404

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee.

Click here to read/download the judgment