UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus M. DURAISAMY

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 19-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
51
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 51
51
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
v.
M. DURAISAMY
(Civil Appeal No. 2665 of 2022)
APRIL 19, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Misconduct – Fraud – Defrauding public
money – Limited jurisdiction of the Court on proportionality of the
order of departmental authority – Respondent was a public servant
in Post office – He committed fraud by way of fraudulent withdrawal
/ non-credit of deposits in RD accounts – Punishment of ‘removal’
from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority – Tribunal
interfered with the punishment so imposed by modifying / substituting
the same from ‘removal’ to ‘compulsory retirement’ – Order passed
by Tribunal confirmed by the High Court – Neither the Tribunal
nor the High Court found any irregularity or procedural lapses in
conducting departmental enquiry – On appeal, held: 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 – Merely because respondent had
worked for 39 years and in those years, there was no punishment
imposed and/or that he voluntarily deposited the defrauded amount
along with penal interest and therefore there was no loss to the
Government/Department cannot be a ground to interfere with the
order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and
substitute the same from removal to that of compulsory retirement –
Being a public servant in the post office, respondent was holding
the post of trust – By such misconduct /act on the part of respondent,
the reputation of the Postal department had been tarnished – Order
of Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of ‘removal’ of
respondent from service, accordingly, restored – Judicial Review.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. In the case on hand, the order passed by the
Tribunal, confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
substituting the punishment of removal to that of compulsory
retirement is unsustainable. Neither the Tribunal nor the High
Court have found any irregularity in conducting the departmental
enquiry. No procedural lapses have been found. In fact, the
respondent employee admitted the charge of having defrauded
Rs.16,59,065/- and on detecting the fraud, he deposited the
defrauded amount of Rs.16,59,065/- along with penal interest.
But for the detection of the fraud, probably, the respondent
employee would not have deposited the defrauded amount. 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. [Para 8][59-B-E]
2. Merely because the respondent-employee had worked
for 39 years and in those years, there was no punishment imposed
and/or that he voluntarily deposited the defrauded amount along
with penal interest and therefore there was no loss to the
Government/Department cannot be a ground to interfere with
the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority
and substitute the same from removal to that of compulsory
retirement. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court have, in
fact, considered the nature and gravity of the misconduct
committed by the delinquent officer. [Para 9][59-E-G]
3. Once it was found that the delinquent officer who was
serving in the post office had defrauded to the extent of
Rs.16,59,065/- and that too, by way of fraudulent withdrawal in as
many as 85 RD accounts and by way of non-credit of deposits in
71 RD accounts, no sympathy on such an employee was warranted.
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. What about the loss caused to the
department by way of goodwill, name and fame of the department
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
53
and its reliab

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.