UNION OF INDIA Vs. GULAM MOHMED GHANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions, (UNION OF INDIA &. OTHERS V/S. GULAM MOHMAD GHANCHI (S.C.A.NO. 11278/01) and UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VS. ARVINDBHAI M. PATEL (S. C. A. NO.12331/03), are decided by this common Judgment, since ultimate question for determination is common. However, before adverting to the same, brief facts of each case are being given separately.

(2.) S.C.A.No.ll278/Ol-Gulam Mohmad Ghanchi: Respondent-Gulam Mohmad Ghanchi was serving as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM), Dabhasa, Taluka Padra. He was put off duty (suspension) on 31-08-1991. Thereafter, he was chargesheeted on 11-02-1992 on the charges that he received one registered letter No. 856 for delivery to the Branch Manager of the Central Bank of India, but did not deliver the same to the Branch Manager, and instead delivered the same to somebody else, resulting in misappropriation of some amount, and that he received a registered letter dated 15-07-1991 for delivery to the Central Bank of India, duly entered at Sr.No.3 and 4 in B.O. slip dated 16-07-1991, but was not delivered to EDA Dabhasa for delivery and given to another person, and the address receipt was not kept with B. O. slip dated 26-07-1991. Enquiry was conducted against him and held guilty of the charges, therefore, removed from service. After putting him off duty from 31-08-1991, no subsistence allowance paid to him. Appeal against the order was rejected by the appellate authority, therefore, action was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (CAT). In the Criminal Case N0. 138/ P/1999 (C.R.No.624/91) (Old Case No. 154/P/1993) filed for the same charges, the respondent stood acquitted by judgment dated 31-03-2001 of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai.

(3.) S. C. A. No.ia331/03-Arvindbhai M. Patel : Arvindbhai M.Patel was working as Extra-Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM) Oz (Bhalod SO). He was charge- sheeted on 15-02-1996 for imputations that he failed to maintain devotion to duty, engaged in forgery of signatures of the depositors; etc. Enquiry was conducted. However, Enquiry Officer reported that all the charges were not proved. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and issued notice to the respondent inviting his representation against proposed penalty to be imposed on him. Accordingly, respondent submitted his reply. Thereafter, penalty of removal from service was inflicted on him. He was put off duty (suspension) from 23-11-1993 prior to service of charge sheet and as per order dated 23-11-1975, no subsistence allowance was paid to him during the pendency of the inquiry. The respondent challenged the order before the CAT.