RATILAL AMBALAL PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned judgment and order dated 28.6.2001 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (for short "the Tribunal") in O.A. No.329 of 1995. He has also prayed that the impugned orders passed by the respondent authority imposing penalty be also quashed and set aside and the petitioner be declared in continuance of service for all the purposes and to give him all the benefits of service including back wages with interest @18% p.a.

(2.) Second prayer made in para 9(B) for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders of penalty passed by the respondent authority is required to be straightaway rejected on two grounds; (i) that those orders are not annexed; and (ii) the said orders were never challenged by the petitioner before learned Tribunal in his O.A. No.329 of 1995.

(3.) The petitioner was serving as Extra Departmental Agent in his capacity as a Branch Post Master since 1970. For committing serious misconduct and violating Rule 8 of the EDA (C&S) Rules he was served with a charge sheet and thereafter regular departmental inquiry was held against him. The Inquiry Officer exonerated him from all the charges levelled against him. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer exonerating the petitioner-delinquent and held all the seven charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Considering the seriousness of the charges, the Disciplinary Authority inflicted the penalty of removal from service by an order dated 20.11.1980. Against which an appeal was filed by the petitioner. The said appeal was dismissed. When the petitioner approached the learned Tribunal by way of O.A. No.148 of 1991 the learned Tribunal directed the Revisional Authority to decide his revision application. Accordingly, the Revisional Authority by its order dated 7.9.1994 partly allowed the revision application and set aside the order of penalty of removal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner in service, but without back wages. While ordering reinstatement of the petitioner in service, the Revisional Authority made it clear that in case the post of EDBPM which was held by the petitioner earlier filled up by a regular candidate, then the petitioner be adjusted in a suitable ED post. In compliance of the said order passed by the Revisional Authority, the petitioner was reinstated, but posted at the vacant post of Mahuda S.O. without back wages. The petitioner did not accept that posting on the ground that he was handicapped as he had lost his leg in an accident and to accept the post of Messenger at Mahuda Post Office would be extremely difficult for him.