UNION OF INDIA Vs. SATPAL SINGH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 19269/2016

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 was working as Gramin Dak Sevak. The respondent No.1 was served with the Memorandum of charges dated 25/08/2007, under the provisions of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001, (in short "2001 Rules"), the following articles of charge were framed:-

(3.) Disciplinary Enquiry was initiated against the respondent No.1, after the inquiry officer conducted the disciplinary enquiry and submitted his report on 28/11/2007. It was held that department could not prove the first article of charge; however, the second article of charge was proved against the respondent No.1.The report of the enquiry authority was duly communicated to the respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 26/04/2008. On 06/05/2008, respondent No.1 submitted his representation against the enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority after due consideration and examination of all the facts, enquiry report and representation submitted by the respondent No.1, imposed punishment of removal from services upon the respondent No.1, vide order dated 02/07/2008. On 20/07/2008, the respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the competent Appellate Authority, i.e. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarnagar Division. The Appellate Authority refused to interfere with the order of the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 19/12/2008. Thereafter, respondent No.1 approached the Tribunal by filing the OA No.1070/2010. The Tribunal, vide order dated 09/12/2010, partly allowed the OA and set aside the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority; and further directed the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh speaking order imposing any penalty other than dismissal or removal from service with a further direction to reinstate the respondent No.1 forthwith, if he has not crossed the age of superannuation. The said order was challenged by the respondent no. 2/ Secretary, Ministry of Communication and IT, Government of India before this court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1653/2011. This court, vide order dated 11/01/2013, quashed the order dated 09/12/2010 passed by the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration and pass a fresh decision with reference to the proportionality of the penalty which the respondent must suffer.