Law: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973

Section: R. 4(1)(b)(i)

1. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---

----R. 4(1)(b)(i)---Employees of Post Office---Allegation of defalcation and embezzlement---Dismissal from service---Service Tribunal converted major penalty of 'dismissal from service' imposed by the competent authority converted into reduction in time scale by two stages for a period of two years in terms of Rule 4(1) (b)(i) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973--Legality---Inquiry report showed that proper opportunity was afforded to the respondents (employees) to defend the charges---Allegations were mostly based on documentary evidence and the performance of duties by the respondents in accordance with the relevant rules and circulars encompassing their nature of duties---Findings and recommendations jotted down in the enquiry reports were properly considered by the competent authority with the proper application of mind and since the charges were found to be proved, the punishment was imposed in accordance with law, keeping in mind all attending circumstances, including the gravity and severity of the proven charges---Tribunal while converting the major punishment into minor punishment failed to evaluate both the inquiry reports wherein the allegations were proved, and without appreciating the reports, the Tribunal treated the cases of both the respondents in the appeal as a mere case of inefficiency and negligence which was without any rationale---Tribunal also failed to highlight any serious defect in the inquiry reports or procedure which became the cause of modifying or setting aside the original punishment of dismissal from service awarded by the competent authority---Where public money and its embezzlement is involved or at stake, the responsible persons cannot be let free or exonerated with only a minor penalty, so while converting the major penalty of removal from service into any minor penalty, it is an onerous obligation of the Service Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction of conversion of punishment with proper application of mind which obviously connotes and necessitates that the quantum of punishment be proportionate and complementary to the charge of misconduct even for a minor act of negligence and inefficiency committed by the delinquent in his duties; so the punishment, even in the minor category as well, should also be of such kind that it may create at least some deterrence for the delinquent and other employees to be more vigilant and attentive to their duties in the future, rather than performing the tasks with callous attitude, which is highly prejudicial and detrimental to the effective functioning and performance of the department---Appeals were allowed, the impugned judgments passed by the Service Tribunal were set aside and the penalty (of dismissal from service) awarded by the department to the respondents was restored.

1. Civil service---

----Punishment, award of---Interference by Tribunals/Courts in punishment awarded by the competent authority---Scope---Award of appropriate punishment under the law is primarily the function of the concerned administrative authority and the role of the Tribunal/Court is secondary---Court ordinarily would not substitute its own finding with that of the said authority unless the latter's opinion is unreasonable or is based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations or is against the law declared.