UNION OF INDIA Vs. INDRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court [High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur] dtd. 2/9/2024 passed in a Writ Petition D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10369 of 2024 filed by the respondent. The High Court while setting aside the order dtd. 23/2/2023 passed by the Tribunal [Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur] in Original Application No.397 of 2015, had set aside the penalty of removal imposed upon the respondent.

(2.) From the facts available on record, it is evident that the respondent was employed on 12/1/1998 as Gramin Dak Sevak/ Branch Post Master. Certain irregularities were found during the course of annual inspection on 16/6/2011 regarding misappropriation of public funds where the respondent despite receiving amount from the account holders, had not entered the same in the books of accounts though the passbook of the account holders had been stamped. Chargesheet was served upon the respondent on 17/12/2013. Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted his report dtd. 11/11/2014 finding that the charges against the respondent stood proved. After giving due opportunity of hearing to the respondent and considering his reply, vide order dtd. 8/12/2014 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the respondent was removed from service. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the respondent preferred statutory appeal, which was dismissed on 31/7/2015. Still aggrieved, the respondent filed application before the Tribunal, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 23/2/2023. Still not satisfied, the respondent preferred Writ Petition before the High Court, which was allowed vide the impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court has travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested in it while examining the punishment imposed upon respondent after due inquiry. There was no defect pointed out by the respondent in the process of inquiry. He was afforded due opportunity of hearing during the course of inquiry. Defence assistance was also provided. In exercise of power of judicial review, only the process of inquiry could be gone into and not the case on merits. It was the admitted case of the respondent that he had misappropriated the funds collected from the depositors for his personal use. When this came to the notice of the authorities and pointed out to him, he deposited the same. The plea of undue influence by the Inspector was taken much later and not during the course of inquiry. The High Court had ventured into examining the admissions made by the respondent on a new plea raised by him. The order of the High Court being perverse, deserves to be set aside.