NARAYAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dtd. 19/10/2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, circuit Bench at Bilaspur, whereby the original application of the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order dtd. 2/3/2021 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Director, Postal Services (Headquarters) Raipur by which the order imposing penalty of censure by the disciplinary authority was set aside and de novo enquiry was ordered.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is working on the post of Post Master, Rural Post Office, Accounts Office, Branch Bhinodi, Sarsiva, Baloda-Bazar. He joined his services on 11/2/1977 and retired after completion of 40 years of service. During his service period on 4/2/2017 Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat-Khamariya made telephonic complaint to Sub Divisional Inspector, Post Office, Balodabazar against the petitioner that he is making irregular payments to MNREGA employees, on which respondent No.2 issued charge sheet to the petitioner on 4/9/2017 (Annexure P/3). Since the departmental witnesses did not state anything against the petitioner and the charges leveled against him could not be proved in the departmental enquiry, Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, Raipur passed an order on 11/4/2019 (Annexure P/6) of censure only against the petitioner which was challenged in appeal before the Director, Postal Services, and on 2/3/2021 (Annexure P/2) the appellate authority set aside the order of censure and ordered for a de novo enquiry against the petitioner. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Original Application before learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) at Jabalpur, Circuit Bench at Bilaspur. However, by the impugned order dtd. 19/10/2023 learned CAT dismissed the original application upholding the order of the appellate authority. Hence this petition for the following reliefs:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are arbitrary, fallacious, prejudicial and contrary to the established provisions of law. The order of de novo proceedings of the appellate authority is prima facie illegal, arbitrary and causing prejudice to the petitioner. Once a penalty has been imposed, the same cannot be set aside by issuing an order of de novo enquiry without following the due procedure as enunciated under the applicable rules. Respondent No.3 does not have power under Rule 18 of the Department of Posts, Gramin Bank Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 (in short "the Rules, 2011) to pass an order for de novo enquiry/proceedings after punishment for censure has already been imposed. It is settled proposition of law that the appellate authority in disciplinary proceedings acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and order passed has to be reasoned one and showing application of mind dealing with the contentions raised in the appeal and if it is not done, the appellant order is vitiated. From bare perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority it is crystal clear that the decision taken is unjustified and deplorable as it is devoid of any application of mind and the respondents have resorted to a hyper technical approach.