UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. PAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 03.01.2014.

(2.) The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that a charge sheet dated 19.10.2005 was issued to the respondent under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for a major penalty inter alia for allegations that while the respondent was functioning as Sub Post Master at Govindpura Post Office, Delhi during the period from 03.03.2003 to 14.09.2004, he took illegal withdrawals from different saving accounts of Govindpura Post Office by affixing forged signature or thumb impression of the depositors on the withdrawal forms (SB -7) himself for his personal use. Pertinently, the depositors from whose accounts the respondent illegally withdrew amounts had expired well before the date of withdrawals of amounts by the respondent. The Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report dated 07.09.2007 held the charges proved against the respondent and the inquiry report dated 07.09.2007 was not challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal. The inquiry report dated 07.09.2007 was agreed to by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 17.10.2007 imposing upon the respondent punishment of compulsory retirement from service under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules was passed.

(3.) Thereafter, the respondent was issued letter dated 19.03.2008 by the appellate authority proposing to enhance the penalty of compulsory retirement to that of dismissal from service within a period of six months of the date of punishment order dated 17.10.2007 proposed to be revised and the respondent was given opportunity to represent against the order dated 19.03.2008. The respondent submitted a representation dated 25.03.2008 against the notice dated 19.03.2008. The appellate authority in exercise of its power under Rule 29(1)(V) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and having considered the respondent's representation dated 25.03.2008 concluded that the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed by the disciplinary authority is not commensurate with the gravity of the charges held as proved against the respondent and finally passed an order dated 24.03.2009 enhancing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service to dismissal from service.