GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 16 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 18:

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Baruah, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Central Government Counsel for all the respondents.

2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 12.02.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Original Application No.040/00187/2016, whereby the punishment of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner in a departmental proceeding, has not been interfered with.

3. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground in the year 2007 on the post of Postal Assistant. While the petitioner was in service, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him in the year 2013 with the specific charge of not having deposited Rs.44,060/-, which he had collected from depositors, in the Bank. Such action of the petitioner, therefore, was found to be unbecoming of an Officer of the Post Office as it showed gross lack of integrity and devotion to duty. The act of the petitioner was found to be unbecoming of a Government servant, violating the provisions of Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

4. It appears from the records that though the petitioner participated in the enquiry but never produced any evidence in support of his defence nor got himself examined, even though he was made to understand that he could have done so. The petitioner also did not produce any witness in support of his defence. The defence of the petitioner before the Disciplinary Authority was that because of his inexperience, a discrepancy had occurred which was largely because of oversight but no sooner had he come to know about it, he had deposited the amount in question along with additional amount which could have been the interest on such amount which was not deposited in the first instance.

5. It appears that after the petitioner deposited the amount, so stated to have been defalcated by him, he was subjected to a departmental proceeding in which he was subjected to a penalty of removal from service.

6. The appeal and the revision against such orders did not succeed.

7. Mr. A.K. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as a vindictive measure, despite the petitioner having deposited the said amount before the departmental proceeding was initiated against him, he was made an accused in a criminal case in which he was put on trial. However, the Trial Court found no incriminating material against the petitioner to charge him with the offence under Section 409 of the IPC. Since the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the petitioner under Section 409 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubts, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the charge against him in the departmental proceeding as also in the criminal case were identical.

8. The law with respect to this aspect of the matter is too trite to be recorded here.

9. A disciplinary proceeding and a criminal case are dealt with differently. In a criminal case, the charges have to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts, whereas in a departmental proceeding, decision hinges on preponderance of probability. However, if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal Courts are almost identical and similar and if the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, in certain cases it might acquire a different dimension. Under such circumstances, a Court might be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief if it concludes that the findings in the disciplinary proceedings, if allowed to stand, would be unjust, unfair and oppressive.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x22y05tJuQKpEAmXxpR1TEUvedPRMVz7rh5LH8Quyzoh&caseno=WP(C)/3413/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010131822025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.