Common Order:

Ninala Jayasurya, J.

1) Aggrieved by the order of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”) dated 31.03.2017 in O.A.No.2177 of 2015 with VMA No.557 of 2015, the applicant as well as the respondents therein filed the present Writ Petitions and the same are disposed of by this common order.

2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3) The facts of the case in brief, may be narrated as follows:

                  i) The applicant while she was working as Pay and Accounts Officer, Tirupati was placed under suspension on 04.07.2009 on the allegation that certain financial irregularities have been committed in the Pay and Accounts Office, Tirupati. A charge memo dated 15.05.2010, framing eight charges was issued, to which the applicant addressed Registered letter dated 15.06.2010 to the 1st respondent stating that the list of documents specified in Annexure-II are not received along with the charge memo and requested to furnish the same for submitting reply to the charges leveled against her. Subsequently on 25.06.2010, the applicant submitted her explanation to the charge memo while specifically stating that the copies of the documents listed in Annexure-II of the Memo dated 15.05.2010 have not been furnished to her and she is reserving her right to file additional written statement on furnishing copies listed in the Charge Memo. Denying the charges, she also requested to hold personal enquiry and hearing by affording reasonable opportunity to place the material evidence for the charges leveled against her and to put forward her defense. In the reply she also stated that CBCID authorities are investigating the scam and until full-fledged enquiry is completed by the police and criminal prosecution is over, further Departmental Enquiry may not be continued in so far as the same set of charges is concerned.

                  The Enquiry Officer / Commissioner of Enquiries submitted a report dated 16.11.2012 holding that out of eight charges, Charge Nos.1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were proved and Charge Nos.2 and 3 were not proved. Out of the charges which were held proved against the applicant, Charge No.1 is the major charge that the applicant in Criminal Breach of Trust found involved in the encashment of 11 cheques fraudulently in collusion with other private individuals and office staff and thereby committed looting of public money to an extent of Ac.4,66,14,398/-. Charges 4 to 8 are with reference to the relevant paras in Pay and Accounts Office (Works Account) Manual dealing with the functions of the cash section and organization of the cash section, selection of cashiers, responsibilities of the Pay and Accounts Officer / Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer in- charge of cash section, Indenting Receipt and safe custody of cheque pads; responsibilities of the cashiers and reconciliation of cheques etc.

                  ii) Pursuant to the said enquiry report dated 16.11.2012, the 1st respondent vide Memo dated 10.12.2012 directed the applicant to explain as to why punishment should not be imposed under Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 for the charges proved against the application in the Enquiry. The applicant submitted her explanation dated 24.01.2013 and thereafter, the 1st respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 20.02.2015 imposed a punishment of withholding entire pensionary benefits permanently on the charge officer / applicant and ordered recovery of misappropriated amount of Rs.1,91,21,590/- (apportioned among all the Charged Officers involved) along with interest, the loss caused from her from the date of occurrence of misappropriation/embezzlement of Government money to the date of recovery as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.33, Finance (TRF.I) Department, dated 09.02.2006 by enforcing the Revenue Recovery Act / Criminal Law Amendment Act.

                  iii) In the meanwhile, the police conducted investigation into the incidents that lead to the ordering of enquiry against the applicant. Incident No.1 relates to certain blank cheques issued by the applicant to the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition in the normal course of business and out of the said cheques, about 193 unused cheques were returned by the Special Deputy Collector to the Pay and Accounts Office. Out of the said cheques, one cheque for an amount of Rs.48,87,954/- was presented to the Bank for encashment and as the Bank entertained a doubt about the signature appended on the same, the applicant instructed the Bank not to honour the same as it was noticed that the said cheque was forged. Incident No.2 relates to issuance of cheque pads by the applicant in her capacity as Pay and Accounts Officer to the cashiers as per PAO Manual for their use. Charge No.1, which is the main charge that the applicant has been found involved in the encashment of 11 cheques fraudulently in collusion with other private individuals and office staff is based on this incident of misuse of cheques. In so far as the Incident No.1, the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short “the FSL”) submitted a report dated 05.08.2009 to the effect that the signatures are not tallying. In the criminal case registered with reference to the Incident No.1 of presenting cheque for Rs.48,87,954/- on the basis of forged cheque, vide Judgment dated 03.07.2013 in C.C.No.397 of 2009, two employees of Pay and Accounts Office and the private contractor in whose name the said cheque was drawn were convicted by III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

                  iv) In so far as the Incident No.2 with reference to the 11 cheques and encashment of Rs.4,66,14,398/-, the said cheques were referred to FSL which gave a report dated 26.09.2011 to the effect that the standard signatures and the questioned signatures are varying in the writing characteristics. The CBCID, which was entrusted with the investigation into the incident, conducted thorough investigation by examining 75 witnesses, including applicant, staff of the Pay and Accounts Office, private individuals in whose favour the cheques were drawn and received the amounts, Bank Officers, Treasury Officers and filed Charge Sheet in the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor, on 27.11.2015 deleting the applicant, who was initially shown as Accused No.1 in the FIR from the charges of collusion and misappropriation and mentioning the names of the persons, who indulged in the said acts.

4) Assailing the order of the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 20.02.2015, imposing punishment, the applicant filed O.A.No.2177 of 2015 before the Tribunal and arguments were addressed on her behalf, inter alia, that –

                  (a) though a list of documents is mentioned in Annexure – II to the charge memo, the same were not furnished to the applicant, even though she requested for the same;

                  (b) the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry in utter violation of CCA Rules, Revised Pension Rules and principles of natural justice;

                  (c) the respondents did not choose to examine any witnesses in support of the charges and did not examine the co-delinquents and private parties as witnesses to prove / substantiate the charges;

                  (d) the respondents have failed to produce necessary evidence in support of the charges framed against her by producing cogent evidence in the form of documents as well as by examining the witnesses;

                  (e) the Enquiry Officer at the time of conducting enquiry only circulated a questionnaire to each one of the delinquent and asked them to furnish their written replies / statements, that the same were not made available to the applicant or an opportunity was afforded to cross-examine the co-delinquents from whom the statements were obtained;

                  (f) the respondents / prosecution miserably failed to discharge its initial burden of proving the charge, more particularly, when collusion between the co-employees / co-delinquents is alleged;

                  (g) the 11 cheques used for withdrawal of amounts were sent to the FSL and as per its report dated 19.10.2011, the signatures on the said cheques are fabricated, and

                  (h) The enquiry is vitiated by non-examination of the co-delinquents / private parties and treasury staff.

5) Detailed arguments were also addressed with reference to the charges based on para 9-5-1 etc., of Pay & Accounts Office (Works Accounts) Manual, inter alia, to the effect that there are no lapses on the part of the applicant, even assuming, that the same did not result in any loss / misappropriation of government funds.

6) Per contra, it was urged on behalf of the respondents that the Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry after giving adequate opportunity to the applicant and after thorough examination of the allegations made against the applicant, the report was submitted. It was contended that it is for the Presenting Officer and Charged Officer to adduce evidence before the Enquiry Officer for appreciation, that the applicant is entitled to introduce her own witnesses with the permission of the Enquiry Officer to adduce evidence and defend herself, especially when it is known to the applicant that the prosecution has not listed any witnesses. It was also urged that the departmental proceedings and the proceedings in a criminal case can be proceeded simultaneously, as there is no bar for conducting both the proceedings simultaneously and that the standards of proof in these proceedings are different.

7) Learned Tribunal after considering the rival contentions recorded its findings with regard to non-furnishing of documents, non-examination of witnesses, not providing opportunity to cross-examine the employees from whom the statements were received etc., vide Order dated 31.03.2017 and held that as per Rule 20 of APCS (CCA) Rules, it is mandatory on the part of the respondents to supply the list of documents relied upon in the charge to the applicant, that the said mandate has not been adhered to and the respondents violated the rights of the applicant for supply of necessary documents for submitting her written statement of defence in a full fledged manner.

8) In para 32 it is held as follows:

                  “…..as per Rule 20 APCS (CCA) Rules, it is the duty of the disciplinary authority to cite the co-employees, private parties, bank employees and the treasury people as the witnesses in the charge memo as unless and until they are shown as witness in the charge memo and were enquired with regard to the alleged misappropriation and give opportunity to the applicant to cross-examine them, the truth or otherwise will not come to light. The disciplinary authority ought to have taken this care to cite the witness in support of eight charges and his action in not citing anyone as witness in sustaining the lengthy charges tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice, since the applicant was denied and deprived of his opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses to prove his innocence. Further, the enquiry at the time of conducting enquiry circulated a questionnaire to each one of the delinquents and asked them to furnish their written replies / statements and after collecting the same, he prepared the enquiry report basing on the same. When the enquiry officer has relied on the statements of the co-delinquents, he should have examined them as witnesses to prove the said statements, which the enquiry officer utterly failed to do. Furthermore, the enquiry officer has not furnished the statements submitted by the co-delinquents to the applicant for furnishing her reply on the said statements, which also vitiated the enquiry. The main basis for the enquiry officer for arriving at the conclusion that the charges are proved is the statement of co- delinquents, who were ought to have been arrayed as witnesses.”

9) Apart from recording the said findings, the learned Tribunal, while examining the matter on merits, further categorically held that the findings of the Enquiry officer that the applicant is responsible for misappropriation is perverse and without any basis and that too, it is not (sic) supported by any oral evidence, in the absence of citing any prosecution witnesses. It also examined the matter with reference to the investigation conducted by the CBCID, deletion of the applicant’s name from the list of accused in the charge sheet and other aspects and held that in the absence of following the minimum requirements as contemplated in Rule 20 of APCS(CCA) Rules, the entire proceedings are vitiated. Learned Tribunal while holding that at no stretch of imagination it can be said that the applicant is responsible for fraudulent encashment of Government money, further opined that there is dereliction of duty by the applicant in supervising the subordinates and taking control over the office matters, for which she has to take responsibility. After recording conclusions, it ultimately held that the punishment imposed does not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct proved against the applicant and set aside the G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 20.02.2015. The Tribunal, however, granted liberty to the respondents to impose a lesser punishment other than the punishment imposed in the impugned G.O., as there was lack of proper supervision by the applicant on her subordinates.

10) Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondents / State filed W.P.No.1114 of 2018 and the applicant to the extent of granting liberty to the respondents / State to impose lesser punishment filed W.P.No.8018 of 2018.

11) Heard Mr.G. Raju, learned Government Pleader for Services, representing the State. Also heard Mr.S.Sriram Reddy, learned counsel for the applicant / delinquent officer.

12) Assailing the order of the learned Tribunal, the learned Government Pleader strenuously contended that the same is not sustainable. He submits that the respondent / applicant indulged in misappropriation of amounts and also guilty of dereliction of duties. He submits that out of the eight charges framed against the applicant, except two, all other charges were held proved and the Learned Tribunal erred grievously in interfering with the order of punishment. He submits that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that after issuing charge memo and considering the explanation submitted by the applicant / delinquent officer an elaborate enquiry was conducted, in which the delinquent officer participated and thereafter a detailed final report was submitted, on the basis of which the Government imposed punishment through the G.O., impugned before the Tribunal. He submits that the findings recorded by the Learned Tribunal to the effect that documents were not furnished to the applicant / delinquent officer is not correct, and as seen from the Memo dated 15.05.2010 (page 173) Annexures I and II are enclosed to the said memo. Further, that the same were furnished on 27.12.2012. He also contends that the enquiry was based on the documentary evidence only, therefore, the examination of witnesses may not be required. He also submits that even the delinquent officer / applicant did not choose to examine any witness in support of her case.

13) With regard to investigation conducted by the CBCID and deleting the name of the delinquent officer / applicant from the list of accused as noted by the Learned Tribunal, he contends that the delinquent officer / applicant was not exonerated by any Court and the Learned Tribunal went wrong in attaching much significance to the said aspect. He also submits that the acquittal of the delinquent officer in a criminal case is not a ground to drop the disciplinary proceedings. Referring to the relevant paras in the Pay and Accounts Office (Works Accounts) Manual, he further argues that there is no dispute that the delinquent officer had handed over the cheque pads to the concerned cashiers and thereafter has not supervised that the work in the cash section is carried out properly. Drawing the attention of this Court to para No.9-5-1 of the said Manual, he submits that lack of supervision lead to the whole episode of misappropriation of huge amounts. Be that as it may. He submits that as the punishment imposed on the delinquent officer / applicant is based on a well considered report of the Enquiry Officer, interference by the Learned Tribunal, that too in a case involving huge misappropriation of public amount, is not called for. Making the said submissions and placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs Sitaram Mishra and Another(AIR 2019 SC 3534); Union of India and Others Vs Subrata Nath(2022 SCC OnLine SC 1617); Airports Authority of India Vs Pradip Kumar Banerjee((2025) 4 SCC 111) and Omi Alias Omkar Rathore and Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Another((2025) 2 SCC 621), learned Government Pleader seeks to allow the Writ Petition filed by the State by setting aside the order of the Tribunal as the same is unjust and legally not sustainable and to dismiss the Writ Petition filed by the delinquent officer/applicant.

14) On the other hand, Mr.S.Sri Ram Reddy, learned counsel while making elaborate submissions with regard to non-compliance with the requirement of Rule 20 of APCS (CCA) Rules, violation of principles of natural justice, which were taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order inter alia contended that the enquiry proceedings are unsustainable as it is a case of no evidence in support of the charges leveled against the applicant. He submits that no witnesses were examined and no oral enquiry was conducted even though applicant had sought for the same. Further that the applicant was not even furnished documents that were annexed to the charge sheet in spite of her repeated requests, therefore, the enquiry is vitiated.  Refuting the submission that the documents sought for by the applicant were furnished on 27.12.2012, the learned counsel submits that only the enquiry report was communicated to the applicant. He also contends that keeping in view of the serious charges of collusion by the employees of Pay & Accounts Office and private individuals leveled against the applicant, it is incumbent on the part of the Department to array the said employees as well as the private individuals as witnesses in order to enable the applicant to cross-examine them and elicit the truth.

15) The learned counsel for the applicant further contends that it is the settled principle of Law that the initial burden lies on the Department / prosecution to adduce the necessary evidence to substantiate the charge leveled against the delinquent and prove the same, that once the said burden is discharged, the same shifts on to the delinquent. He empathetically submits that in the case on hand the Department grossly failed to discharge its initial burden as no witnesses were examined and no evidence was adduced to establish the charges leveled against the applicant. He therefore submits that the contention to the effect that nothing prevented the applicant from adducing evidence through the witnesses produced by her is legally not tenable. Learned counsel also points that several averments and contentions of the applicant in the O.A. as well as in the Writ Petition filed by her remained uncontroverted / unanswered, as such it amounts to admission of the same. He further submits that in the face of the report of the CBCID after examining 75 witnesses and 150 documents, which not only named the persons who misappropriated, but also traced the trail of the amount, the punishment imposed including the recovery of the amount allegedly misappropriated by the applicant is wholly untenable. He also submits that no details are forthcoming as to how the amount sought to be recovered from the applicant was arrived at.

16) The learned counsel while referring to the findings in the Tribunal’s Order that there is supervisory lapse on the part of the applicant, he submits that no reasons are set out for arriving at such conclusions. He contends that even to arrive at any conclusion or record a finding that there is supervisory lapse on the part of the applicant, the charges leveled against the applicant should contain the same, but the respondents did not choose to frame a definite charge on those lines, much less with regard to para 9-15-1, with reference to which the CBCID appears to have been made some observation in its report / charge sheet to the effect that there are supervisory lapses on the part of the applicant. It is also his submission that in fact, the entire proceedings are liable to be set aside as they are conducted with a predetermined and prejudicial mind. In any event, he submits that in the light of the categorical finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the enquiry is vitiated, the liberty granted by it to the respondents is misconceived and the Order dated 31.03.2017 to the said extent is, therefore, liable to set aside.

17) The learned counsel further submits that the applicant was retired from service on 31.07.2011 and in view of the pendency of the proceedings she has not been paid pensionary benefits till date i.e., for 14 long years, that she was placed under suspension on 04.07.2009, till her date of retirement and further that from the date of retirement till the impugned punishment order, she was paid provisional pension. Contending that without there being any justification for continuation of the proceedings against the applicant and that she is subjected to grave mental agony for 15 long years, learned counsel submits that the Writ Petition filed by the applicant deserves to be allowed by holding that the respondents are liable to pay the entire amount due to her along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, as the applicant was denied the use of the amount payable to her towards terminal benefits and other service benefits. He also places reliance on the following judgments:

                  i) G.M.Tank Vs State of Gujarat and Others((2006) 5 SCC 446)

                  ii) Union of India Vs H.C.Goel((2022) 13 SCC 329)

                  iii) P. Sreeramulu & Ors., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh(AIR 1970 AP 114)

                  iv) M.A.Narayana Setty Vs Divisional Manager & Disciplinary Authority, LIC of India, Cuddapah & Others(1990 (1) APLJ 222)

                  v) Central bank of India Ltd., Vs Karunamoy Banerjee(1967 SCC OnLine SC 65)

                  vi) Naseem Bano (Smt) Vs State of UP and Others(1993 Supp(4) SCC 46)

                  vii) M.V.Bijlani Vs Union of India and Ors.,( (2006) 5 SCC 88)

                  viii) D.D.Tewari (Dead) Through LRs Vs Uttar Haryana Buli Vitran Nigam Ltd., and Others( (2014) 8 SCC 894)

18) Considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the points arise for adjudication by this Court are:

                  (i) Whether the order of the Tribunal in interfering with the punishment imposed on the applicant is not sustainable and liable to be set aside?

                  ii) Whether the order of the Tribunal to the extent of directing lesser punishment on the applicant on the premise that there was lack of proper supervision on her subordinates is liable to be quashed?

                  iii) Whether the applicant / delinquent officer is entitled for interest as prayed for, in the facts and circumstances of the case?

Point No.1:

19) Before dealing with the arguments advanced by the counsel on both sides, it may be pertinent to mention that for the sake of brevity, the charges levelled against the applicant vide Annexure-1 to Memo dated 15.05.2010 of the 1st respondent are not reproduced. Suffice to state that copy of the said Memo and the other communications to the applicant were marked as Ex.P11 (Pages 171 to 182) in W.P.No.8018 of 2018. As seen from the said Memo dated 15.05.2010, there is a mention about list of documents (in Annexure-II) by which the Articles of charge framed against the applicant are proposed to be sustained. For ready reference, the documents referred to in Annexure-II are extracted hereunder:

                  1. Petition- 1 in two pages.

                  2. District Treasury Officer, Chittoor letter No.Roc.No.K5/2290/2009-10, dated 25.06.2009.

                  3. District Treasury Officer, Chittoor Leter No.Roc.No.K5/2009-10, dated 15.07.2009.

                  4. Stock Register of page-2, Page 8, Page 13, Page 21.

                  5. Reply letter from Sri K.Gurraiah, Superintendent (Under suspension) along with taken over by R.Lavan Kumar Reddy, Two Cash Books and Cheque Series.

                  6. Handing over taking over between R.Lavan Kumar Reddy and Kum.V.Suryakumari.

                  7. Cheque No.990253 is one of the series issued to V.Siva Sankar Reddy in between cheque series 990251 to 990300 Page 8 of Stock Register, Cheque No.990374 is one of the series issued to D.Gopal in between cheque series 990351 to 990400.

                  8. JDWA/KDP.Memo No.Admn/Camp @ TPT/Camp-1; dt.23.06.2009.

                  9. Reply of PAO, Tirupati vide Lr.No.PAO(W&P)/TPT Camp @ KDP/09-10, Camp No.2, dt.24.06.2009.

                  10. S.S.T. of Public Health Department from 10/2007 to 8/2008.

20) On receipt of the said Memo dated 15.05.2010, the applicant addressed a letter dated 15.06.2010 through Registered Post to the 1st respondent stating that the list of documents specified in Annexure-II are not received and requested to communicate the same for submitting her reply to the charges leveled against her. Stating that the copies of the documents listed in Annexure-II of the Memo have not been furnished, while reserving her right to file additional written statement on furnishing all the copies listed in the charge memo, the applicant filed her written statement / explanation dated 25.06.2010 to the charges leveled against her and denied the same. As seen from the material on record, there is no reply to her letter dated 15.06.2010 or any communication furnishing the copies of the documents listed in Annexure- II of the Memo dated 15.05.2010, which goes to show that the request of the applicant was not attended to. Though a submission was made by the learned Government Pleader, that the documents were furnished on 27.12.2012 (Ex.P13, Pg 234 in W.P.No.1114 of 2018), as seen from the said document, only copy of the Government Memo dated 10.12.2012 along with the enquiry report dated 20.12.2012, was directed to be served on the applicant. There is no mention about the list of documents in Annexure-II, much less, furnishing of the same to the applicant. Therefore, the submission made by the learned Government Pleader deserves no acceptance. Be that as it may.

21) In the present case, Charge No.1, which is serious in nature is with reference to encashment of Rs.4,66,14,390/- through eleven cheques and the allegation made against the applicant is that she involved herself in criminal breach of trust and has been found involved in the encashment of cheques fraudulently in collusion with private individuals and office staff. The names of the said individuals and the employees to whom the cheques were issued by the PAO / applicant along with the cheque numbers, dates and the amount encashed were set out in Charge No.1. To establish the guilt of the applicant that she acted fraudulently in collusion with the persons named in Charge No.1 or for that matter any other person, the Department - respondents ought to have examined them and afforded an opportunity of cross examination to the applicant. However, to the reasons best known to the respondents, such a procedure was not followed, which is fatal and goes to the root of the enquiry conducted against the applicant and the report submitted pursuant thereto.

22) It is also the case of the applicant that despite the request made by her, the documents listed in Annexure-II of the Charge Memo were not furnished to her. Though the learned Government Pleader sought to contend that to prove the charges leveled against the applicant, documentary evidence was sufficient, which impliedly amounts to an admission, that no oral evidence was adduced / oral enquiry conducted, yet non-furnishing of documents amounts to gross violation of principles of natural justice. At this juncture, it may be appropriate to refer to the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the State.

23) Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee (Civil Appeal No(s).8414 of 2017) is a case wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was examining the order passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Calcutta, which set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, upholding the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the disciplinary authority and subsequently confirmed by the sub-committee while acting as appellate authority. On behalf of the appellant, it was inter alia contended that High Court grossly erred and acted in contravention of the limitations governing the exercise of the writ jurisdiction while re-appreciating the evidence and by delving into the evidentiary value of the report of the Enquiry Officer, that the Division Bench fell in grave error in concluding that the proceedings before the Disciplinary Authority were vitiated due to the non-examination of the complainant from whom the respondent accepted the illegal gratification. On behalf of the respondent / delinquent officer, it was urged that the respondent could not have been made to undergo disciplinary enquiry proceedings on the very same charges which were subject matter of the criminal proceedings and that non-examination of the complainant is fatal to the case of the appellate authority and therefore the order of the Division Bench was wholly justified.

24) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment opined that “all that is required on the part of the Disciplinary Authority is that it should examine the evidence in the disciplinary proceedings and arrive at a reasoned conclusion that the material placed on record during the course of enquiry establishes the guilt of the delinquent employee on the principle of preponderance of probabilities and that in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the Department is limited” (See: Para Nos.33 and 34). Thus, rejecting the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court. As seen from the said judgment, it is discernible that the Department chose to examine the witnesses before the enquiry officer and thus, it is not a case where no evidence was adduced at all like in the case on hand. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the present fact situation.

25) In H.C.Goel, case relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant, a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was called upon to answer two questions of law, one of which is whether the High Court in dealing with a writ petition filed by a Government Officer who has been dismissed from Government Service is entitled to hold that the conclusion reached by the Government in regard to his misconduct if not supported by any evidence at all. One of the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondent therein was that the conclusion of the appellant that the third charge framed against the respondent had been proved, is based on no evidence. While observing that the contention is absolutely sound, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para No.23 inter alia opined as follows:

                  “23…………………The only test which we can legitimately apply in dealing with this part of the respondent's case is, is there any evidence on which a finding can be made against the respondent that Charge No. 3 was proved against him? In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 on such a plea, the High Court cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion. That is a matter which is within the competence of the authority which deals with the question; but the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence illegally the impugned conclusion follows or not. Applying this test, we are inclined to hold that the respondent's grievance in well founded, because, in our opinion, the finding which is implicit is the appellant's order dismissing the respondent that charge number 3 is proved against him is based on no evidence.”

26) While dismissing the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the technical rules which govern criminal trials in courts may not necessarily apply to disciplinary proceedings, but nevertheless, the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquiries held under the statutory rules. (See: Para No.27)

27) In M.V.Bijlani’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, wherein the High Court inter alia on the basis of findings of the enquiry officer opined that there had been dereliction of duty which penetrates into the arena of mis-utilisation. One of the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the enquiry officer mis-directed himself in arriving at the finding of guilt against the appellant without considering the nature of the charges leveled against the appellant. While setting aside the order of the High Court and remanding the matter to the disciplinary authority, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined as follows:

                  “25. ………..Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with.”

28) The above referred judgments, thus, go to show that even to arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability, the documents / material shall be examined.

29) In the present case, even accepting the submission to the effect that in the light of the documentary evidence / material which is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charge on the basis of the same, in the absence of furnishing the said documents / material, no findings can be recorded that the charge is proved. Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader deserves no appreciation and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant merits acceptance.

30) Further, the learned Tribunal, after considering the relevant aspects, including Rule 20 of the A.P.C.S. (CCA) Rules, held that the entire proceedings are vitiated.

31) Rule 20 deals with the procedure for Imposing Major Penalties and Rule (3) and (4), which are relevant to the present context are extracted hereunder for ready reference:

                  (3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government servant under this rule and rule 21, the disciplinary authority or the (cadre)* controlling authority who is not designated as disciplinary authority and who is subordinate to the appointing authority can drawn up or cause to be drawn up.

                  *[The word cadre omitted by G.O.Ms.No.459, G.A.(Ser.C), Dept., Dt.22-09-2009]

                  (i) The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior into definite and distinct articles of charge.

                  (ii) A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in support of each article of charge, which shall contain -

                  (a) A statement of all relevant facts including any; admission or confession made by the Government servant.

                  (b) Copies of documents by which and copies of statements of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained.

                  (4) The Disciplinary Authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government Servant a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be and copies of the said documents and statements of the said witnesses and shall require the Government Servant to appear before the Disciplinary Authority on such day and at such time not exceeding ten working days and submit a written statement of his defense and to state whether he desires to be heard in person.

32) As noted earlier, there is nothing on record which goes to show that the documents which are listed in Annexure-II of the Memo dated 15.05.2010 were served / delivered to the applicant. Further, though Rule 20 (4) referred to supra contemplates that list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained, shall be delivered or caused to be delivered, the same has not been adhered to and on the other hand, the respondents - Department having chosen to obtain the statements of some staff members etc., did not furnish the same to the applicant. The enquiry is therefore contrary to Rule 20 of the said Rules and vitiated for the said reasons. That apart, the various averments / contentions advanced on behalf of the applicant with reference to non-furnishing of documents including the statements obtained from the staff etc., violation of the principles of natural justice etc., remained uncontroverted and constitutes admission of the same. (See: Naseem Bano’s case, 1993 Supp.(4) SCC).

33) The other contentions urged by the learned Government Pleader that the acquittal of the delinquent officer in a criminal case is not a ground to drop the disciplinary proceedings and further that the Tribunal went wrong in taking into account the deletion of the applicant from the array of accused by CBCID merits no acceptance. The Tribunal has assigned cogent reasons in its well considered order, which are referred to supra and this Court see any valid point to take a different view. However, it may be pertinent to mention that the eleven cheques which are referred to in Charge No.1 and the alleged fraudulent withdrawal of a sum of Rs.4,66,14,398/- through the said cheques with the collusion of the staff and private individuals by the applicant were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and the purport of its report, is that the signatures on the said cheques are not tallying with that of the applicant and that the cheques are forged / fabricated. Even the one cheque for Rs.48,87,954/- out of the 193 unused cheques returned by the Special Deputy Collector to the Pay and Accounts Officer, which was not honoured at the instance of the applicant was sent to the Forensic Laboratory and the report is to the effect that the signatures are not tallying. The genuineness of the said reports is neither controverted nor questioned. That apart, the CBCID which conducted a thorough investigation into the misappropriation of Rs.4,66,14,398/- filed a Charge Sheet citing as many as 75 witnesses (applicant as L.W.2) after deleting the applicant who was mentioned as Accused No.1 in the F.I.R., from the array of accused. No reasons are forthcoming as to why the respondents - Department did not chose to examine a single witness in the enquiry proceedings, that too when the charges leveled against the applicant are required to be established by them. In fact, as opined by the learned Tribunal, the applicant stands on much better footing as no criminal case was registered against her insofar as the incident pertaining to presentation of cheque for Rs.48,87,954/-, and the CBCID after investigation in respect of the eleven cheques used for withdrawal of Rs. 4,66,14,398/-, has not filed charge sheet against the applicant.

34. In Subrat Nath’s case referred to supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia held that once the gravity of the misdemeanor is established and the enquiry conducted is found to be consistent with the prescribed Rules and reasonable opportunity contemplated under the Rules has been afforded to the delinquent employee, then the punishment imposed is not open to the Judicial Review by the Court. However, in the present case, there is violation of Rule 20 of the APCS (CCA) Rules apart from principles of natural justice. The other judgments in Omi alias Omkar Rathore’s case etc., referred to supra, are of no aid to the respondents. While there is no dispute about the proposition of law in the said cases, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

35) Thus, in the light of the conclusions arrived at by this Court, the order of the learned Tribunal in interfering with the punishment imposed on the applicant, which is supported by cogent reasons, cannot be viewed as illegal, untenable or unjust as urged by the learned Government Pleader. Therefore, the contentions advanced on behalf of the State in this regard are rejected and the point is answered against the writ petitioner in W.P.No.1114 of 2018.

Point No.2:

36) The learned Tribunal, as mentioned earlier, while setting aside the order of permanent withholding of pensionary benefits and recovery of the amount of Rs.1,91,21,590/- allegedly misappropriated from the applicant, granted liberty to the State to impose lesser punishment. Referring to the charges based on relevant Para Nos.9-5-1 etc., of Pay and Accounts Office (Works Accounts) Manual, it is submitted on behalf of the State that lack of supervision gave scope to the misappropriation of huge amounts and as such, the applicant is liable for punishment. Whereas, the learned counsel for the applicant contended to the effect that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal that there is supervisory lapse on the part of the applicant is without any definite charge on those lines and the Tribunal recorded such conclusions obviously in view of the report of CBCID that there are supervisory lapses on the part of the applicant. As already noted by this Court, the relevant paras in Pay and Accounts (Works Accounts) Manual with reference to which Charges 4 to 8 are framed against the applicant deals with the procedure and responsibilities of the officers and cashiers. Even to arrive at a conclusion that there is non-adherence to the procedure contemplated in the manual, lack of supervision, dereliction of duties / responsibilities, the respondents-State is required to establish the same by adducing evidence. However, in the present case, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced at all. The statements which are purportedly obtained from some office staff or others which are undisputedly not furnished to the applicant cannot form a valid basis to fix the liability on the applicant, as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Even to hold that there are lapses or lack of supervision on the part of the applicant that lead to misappropriation of funds, appropriate evidence more particularly oral evidence should have been adduced with an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that it is a case virtually with no evidence and the expression of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.M.Tank’s case is applicable, merits acceptance. Though the sequence of events point out finger at the applicant, in the absence of any evidence, on mere surmises and conjectures that too without any definite charge, it cannot be held that the applicant is guilty of dereliction of duty or lack of supervision over her subordinates. Be that as it may. The learned Tribunal having held that the enquiry is vitiated, in the considered opinion of this Court, went wrong in granting liberty to the respondents-State to impose lesser punishment.

37) In the case on hand, the foundational facts are same and since no oral / documentary evidence was adduced, except taking the statements of some staff and others, the copies of which are not furnished to the applicant, the entire enquiry is vitiated and therefore, no action on the basis of the report submitted pursuant to such an enquiry is legally sustainable. Therefore, the liberty granted by the learned Tribunal in the operative portion of the order dated 31.03.2017 is unsustainable and the same is quashed. In fact, as rightly concluded by the learned Tribunal, the applicant stands on a better footing in as much as no Charge Sheet was filed against her and the misappropriation of Government money was fixed on the accused arrayed in the Charge Sheet. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the applicant / writ petitioner in W.P.No.8018 of 2018.

Point No.3:

38) The contentions with regard to the claim for interest made on behalf of the applicant are set out in Para No.16, above citations of applicant are not reiterated. This Court in the light of the material on record and conclusions recorded by the learned Tribunal that the enquiry is vitiated as also in view of deletion of the petitioner from the array of accused in respect of the alleged misappropriation by the applicant fraudulently in collusion with the departmental staff and private individuals, is of the opinion that the State is not justified in continuation of the proceedings against the applicant and the contentions that she was deprived of the amounts due to her like retirement benefits etc., are well founded. Though the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant in D.D.Tewari (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Others((2014) 8 SCC 894) is not directly applicable to the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that a reasonable interest @ 6% p.a., instead of 18 % p.a., may be granted to the applicant in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly the point is answered.

39) In the result, W.P.No.1114 of 2018 filed by the State is dismissed and W.P.No.8018 of 2018 filed by the applicant is allowed in part with interest, as indicated above. The amounts due along with interest shall be paid to the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.