BALAN NAIR Vs. SUPDT. OF POST OFFICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is preferred against the order in O.A.No. 905 of 1996 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.

(2.) Short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the case are as follows: Petitioner was working as Branch Postmaster at Vilakkode. While so, he was put off duty with effect from 27.9.1993 pending disciplinary proceedings. Charge against the petitioner was that while he was functioning as Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster he failed to account for Savings Bank deposit of Rs.525/- on 1.9.1993 accepted by him on that day from one V.R. Gopalakurup. Same was credited in the Post Office account only on 25.9.1993. This, according to the Department, is in violation of R.131 of the Rules for Branch Offices and thus failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in contravention of R.17 of the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. Detailed enquiry was conducted on the basis of chargesheet. Earlier there was delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings which led the petitioner filing application before the Tribunal which was disposed of by the Tribunal directing the authorities to pass orders within a specified time. Petitioner has got a case that disciplinary proceedings were not finalised within the time. Consequently they were bound to re - instate the petitioner. Same was not done. This, according to the petitioner, is an illegality. Finally disciplinary proceedings were completed and the petitioner's service was terminated. It is against the said order he preferred O.A.No. 905 of 1996 before the Tribunal. After perusing the files Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the punishment awarded and the application was dismissed.

(3.) When the matter came up for hearing today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri M.C. Nambiar submitted that petitioner has an unblemished record of service and consequently punishment imposed is not in any way commensurate with the guilt, if any, established. Counsel also relied on the oral evidence of Gopalakurup who was the depositor. The depositor had stated in his deposition that the amount paid by him was correctly entered in the passbook. Counsel for the Department submitted that detailed enquiry was conducted by " the Department on the basis of records maintained in the normal course of business. Counsel further submitted that this court shall not interfere with the quantum of punishment which depends upon factual materials.