Contributory Negligence
Allegations: Applicant Harjibhai Vaniya allowed Shri Atul P. Bhatt to misuse blank passbooks, leading to forgery and financial loss to the government. Allowing Shri Atul P. Bhatt, a Small Savings Agent, to enter the post office counter against Directorate's instructions. Failing to prevent Bhatt from taking blank passbooks from the Bhayavadar Sub Post Office. Facilitating Bhatt in committing fraud by preparing forged passbooks and misappropriating a total sum of ₹41,00,000.
Rule 3(2)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Pertaining to ensuring integrity and devotion to duty of government servants under one's control.
Rule 21(1) & (2) of the P&T Manual Vol.I Part 1 - Violated by the applicant. Rule 6(2)(b) of POSB (CBS) Manual (SB Order NO.09/2018) - Also cited in the charges against the applicant
Penalty: Recovery of ₹17,41,565 imposed in instalments due to negligence under Rule 16 proceedings.
The applicant's appeal against the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was upheld by the Appellate Authority, which confirmed the penalty of recovery of ₹17,41,565.
The applicant's subsequent revision petition was also rejected. The High Court allowed a petition to quash the disciplinary order but did not prevent a regular inquiry from being conducted if deemed necessary.
The court set aside the punishment by determining that the decision of the Disciplinary Authority to dispense with a regular inquiry was arbitrary.
The court emphasized that the applicant was not given an opportunity to present evidence, despite denying negligence, and that the imposition of a significant financial penalty without a proper inquiry was unjust. "The huge amount ordered to be recovered in terms of minor penalty is held to be arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court."
The following legal principles were claimed to have been violated in the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant:
Natural Justice: The applicant was denied a fair opportunity to defend his case effectively, including the right to examine witnesses relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority.
Statutory Rules Compliance: The inquiry was conducted under Rule 16 instead of the required full-fledged inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which is necessary for serious allegations.
Evidence-Based Conclusion: The findings and conclusions reached by the Disciplinary Authority were argued to be based on insufficient evidence, violating the principles of fairness and due process.
Lack of Evidence: There was no evidence or documentation to substantiate the claims that the applicant benefited from the alleged misappropriation of ₹41,00,000.
Violation of Natural Justice: The applicant was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself, including the right to present evidence and challenge the allegations made against him.
