MANISH PRADHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dtd. 31/7/2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Original Application No. 203/00387/2015, whereby the learned Tribunal, while rejecting the said Application, has confirmed the order passed by the appellate authority enhancing the penalty of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service to that of this removal.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sorting Assistant in Railway Mail Service, Raipur Division, Raipur on 18/7/1992 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Sub-Divisional Inspector (Posts) on 31/3/2001 and, in due course of time, he was posted at Raipur on 30/7/2002 and while working as Manager (SPCC), Raipur Headquarters, he was suspended on 30/7/2002. It has been alleged against him that while working as such, he misappropriated the Government fund as under :-

(3.) During his suspension period, a charge-sheet was served upon him on 7/7/2006 issued by the Senior Superintendent (Post), Raipur Division, Raipur with regard to the violation of Rules 4 (1) and 103 of the Posts and Telegraph Financial Handbook, Part-I as he failed to maintain the dignity and duty under Rules 3 (1) (i) and 3 (1) (ii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The petitioner has submitted his reply on 11/7/2006 (Annexure P/5) denying all the charges levelled against him. A departmental enquiry was proposed to be constituted under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965) while appointing enquiry officer, who in turn, after conclusion of the enquiry, submitted his report dtd. 13/5/2013 (Annexure P/11) to the disciplinary authority wherein the charges levelled against the petitioner was found to be proved partially. The disciplinary authority had, however, not agreed with the said findings, and therefore, directed the petitioner vide its memo dtd. 21/11/2013 (Annexure P/12) to submit his explanation. In response to it, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 2/12/2013 (Annexure P/13) while pointing out the illegality committed by the enquiry officer and also pointed out that some of the important witnesses, based upon which, the alleged charge-sheet was issued, were not examined, and therefore, the alleged charges cannot be held to be proved.