Original Application No. 229 of 2011. Case: Subhash Sakharam Ji Thawre Vs Union of India, Chief Post Master General, Director, Postal Services and Superintendent of Post Office. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | Original Application No. 229 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Vijay Tripathi, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri A.P. Khare, Advocate |
| Judges | Dhirendra Mishra, J. (Member (J)) and G.P. Singhal, Member (Ad.) |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 309 |
| Judgement Date | July 19, 2013 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
Dhirendra Mishra, J. (Member (J)), (Jabalpur Bench)
1. Through this Original Application the applicant has impugned the order of punishment dated 19.07.2010 (Annexure A-1), whereby the disciplinary authority has removed him from service, after departmental enquiry. The order passed by the disciplinary authority has been further affirmed by the appellate authority vide impugned order of Annexure A-2 dated 27.01.2011. Shri Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, vehemently argued that both the authorities below have not considered the defence of the applicant with regard to charge No. 1 that he kept the government money of Rs. 8425.85p at his residence on account of security reason as there was no facility for keeping the cash with safety at Parsodi Branch. He requested the authorities to allow him an hour's time to bring back the cash. However, his request was turned down. The amount in question has already been deposited by the applicant only after three days on 26.07.2008. Regarding Charge No. 2, the authorities below have also ignored the statement of prosecution witness Smt. Rekha Bai, who has categorically stated that she never gave Rs. 200/- to the applicant for depositing in her saving bank account. The findings recorded by the enquiry officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority are not based on material available on record. The punishment of removal from service is too harsh and the disciplinary authority has taken into consideration earlier conduct of the applicant for imposing the penalty, which is not admissible under the law.
2. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned orders of punishment.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents annexed therewith.
4. The disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer on 13.5.2010 and further considering that the applicant did not file any representation against the enquiry report even after receipt of the copy of the same, has imposed the penalty of removal from service and the appellate authority after referring to the grounds urged by the applicant in his appeal has rejected his appeal by a reasoned order. That apart, the applicant does not dispute the shortage of the government money at the time of inspection and had offered to make good the shortage and deposited the same after three days of inspection. From the...
To continue reading
Request your trial