ORDER
P.K. Misra, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
2. The Union of India and the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chennai City North Division, Chennai-600 023, have filed the present writ petition against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, in O.A. No. 915 of 1998 whereunder the Tribunal has modified the punishment imposed on the present contesting respondent No. 2 from recovery of certain amount and stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect to one of censure alone. As a matter of fact, after going through the materials on record and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, imposition of “censure” would practically amount to granting a merit certificate to the second respondent.
3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:
At the relevant time, the present second respondent was working as Accounts Clerk in the post office – second petitioner herein. Two National Savings Certificates standing in the name of two persons had been pledged to the bank and such certificates had been sent by the bank to the post office for realisation of the money. However, since some technical formalities have not been complied with by the bank, the amount had not been paid and the certificates remained in the post office. The National Savings Certificates had already been signed by the holders. Subsequently, on the basis of those signed certificates, payment had been made to two persons. Since the formalities as contemplated in Rule 23 of the Post Office (Savings Bank) Manual had not been complied with, the present second respondent was asked to explain. In his explanation, he submitted that since the signature on the certificates was already in existence and such signature tallied with the admitted signature of the National Savings Certificates holders, there was no necessity to take any fake signature. It was also pleaded by him that since the certificates were not presented by a messenger, there was no question of obtaining signature of the messenger or getting endorsement from the Post Master. The disciplinary authority, on consideration of the charge memo and the explanation, came to the conclusion that the present second respondent had not followed the procedure contemplated in such matters inasmuch as he had neither obtained the signature of the person to whom the money was paid nor he had obtained any endorsement from the Post Master. Accordingly, punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect was awarded. It was also directed that a sum of Rs.7,775/- representing a portion of the loss caused to the Post Office is to be recovered from the second respondent. Thereafter, the present second respondent filed Original Application No. 915 of 1998 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, came to the conclusion that there was no circumstance to show that the applicant (present second respondent) had connection with the persons who had presented the certificates for payment. It also came to the conclusion that there was no material to show that the applicant had any bad motive or intention for not asking the signatures of the persons who presented the certificates. The Tribunal further observed as follows:
“If at all the applicant has committed any mistake it would be only a technical mistake and he is not responsible for the loss incurred by the Post Office. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that recovery was also ordered from the other two persons namely, Smt. K. Padma and Smt. Nirmala. But that does not mean the applicant has also to be penalized. In fact it is Smt. Nirmala who ought to have been more careful since the same were handed over to her by Smt. Padma to keep them in safe custody. Therefore, recovery of any amount from the applicant does not arise.”
The Tribunal further concluded that as per Rule 26, Post Office was not responsible for the loss and hence it cannot be said that loss had been caused on payment of the amount.
4. After carefully going through the order passed by the Tribunal and other connected materials available on record and after hearing the counsel at length, we are unable to accept the reasoning given by the Tribunal for the purpose of modifying the punishment. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the second respondent herein has committed a technical mistake. Once the delinquency of a particular employee is found, the matter of punishment is within the exclusive discretion of the disciplinary authority and ordinarily the Tribunal or the High Court deciding such matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India do not interfere with such discretionary order of punishment imposed, unless the punishment appears to be grossly disproportionate to in comparison with the nature of delinquency. Even the observation of the Tribunal that no loss had been caused to the Post Office appears to be wholly unjustified in view of the admitted position that the Post Office had to pay the amount to the bank which had already paid the amount to the certificate holders. In other words, obviously, there was a loss in the sense that the Post Office had paid the money to some unauthorised persons which is a loss either to the Post Office or to the bank. The Tribunal, could not have observed that no loss had been caused to the Post Office. Similarly, the reasoning of the Tribunal to the effect that other persons Smt. Padma and Nirmala were responsible, is not material so far as the present second respondent is concerned. Even assuming that such persons were responsible and were visited with some minor punishment, that would not exonerate the present second respondent from the liability. Whether the second respondent had any bad motive or intention, is immaterial. In view of the negligence of the second respondent in not following the procedure, loss has been caused to the post office and therefore, the disciplinary authority was justified in imposing the punishment. Having regard to all these circumstances since the Tribunal had interfered with the order passed by the disciplinary authority without any legal basis, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside and the order passed by the disciplinary authority is hereby confirmed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 2850 of 2001 for stay is closed.