TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... employed as Sub-Postmaster, Kalanjoor, during the period from 14-8-1984 to 22-8-1985. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him on two charges of misconduct. The first charge was that while he was functioning as Sub-Postmaster, Kalanjoor on 21-8-1985, he fraudulently effected a withdrawal of ₹ 8000 without the knowledge of the depositor from Savings Bank Account No. 150657 of Kala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to compulsory retirement by the appellate authority. It appears that the respondent was prosecuted in a criminal court in respect of the offences under Sections 407, 467 and 477A I.P.C. disclosed in the first charge regarding the withdrawal of ₹ 8000 by him. In the said criminal proceedings the respondent was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, by the judgment dated 31-8-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of punishment has to be reviewed because the punishment was related to two charges and since the finding on the more serious of the charges has been set aside as unsustainable, the order to the extent of imposing the punishment could not be sustained. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the application and set aside the order of punishment with the direction that the appellate authority wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se and has held that the nature and scope of the criminal case are very different from those of a departmental disciplinary proceedings and an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental proceedings. This is so because in a criminal case the charge has to be proved by the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt while in departmental proceedings the standard of proof for provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its jurisdiction, could not direct the appellate authority to review the penalty imposed on the respondent. We are unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment dated 15-6-1993 of the Tribunal in OA No. 1045 of 1991 is set aside and OA No. 1045 of 1991 filed by the respondent before the Tribunal is dismissed. But in the circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
