MANIBHAI DHULABHAI PARMAR Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 27.01.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in O.A No. 726 of 2016.

(2.) The petitioner who joined services of the respondent as Sub-Postmaster on 19.04.1981 and was serving as a Sub-Postmaster at Mehlol Post Office, Godhra, and received an amount of Rs. 5,230/from the depositor of CTD account of the J.D.R and J.I.Pandya School, Mehlol, for period during 19.04.1981 and 27.12.1985. It appears that, as alleged, the petitioner made entries in the respective pass books but failed to make an entry in the Branch Office Journal/Daily Account, and thus allegations were that the petitioner had violated the provisions of relevant rules of Financial Hand Book, Post Office Savings Bank Manual as well as Branch Office Rules.

(3.) Based on the above, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 27.12.1985 by the Superintendent of Post Office, PMS Division, Godhra. It is the case of the petitioner that no charge sheet was issued and order dated 29.01.1986 was passed, whereby, proceedings of disciplinary inquiry were initiated. A complaint was registered on 14.02.1986 and upon investigation, charge sheet was filed which resulted into institution of Criminal Case No. 458 of 1986 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godhra. It is the case of the petitioner that after trial of the criminal case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide judgment and order dated 15.12.1988 rendered in Criminal Case No.458 of 1986 acquitted the petitioner of all charges, and thereafter, the petitioner continued to make representations from 1989 onwards. Copies of some of the representations, however, is produced on record. The said judgment and order attained finality since Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1986 filed by the State of Gujarat against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate came to be dismissed having leave refused. 3. 1 When jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal was invoked by the petitioner who was suspended from service on 27.12.1985 for alleged misappropriation of certain deposits in the Post Office followed by departmental proceedings, and 19 representations submitted by the petitioner and upon hearing the learned advocate for the applicant, the Tribunal noticed the fact about removal of the petitioner from services on 27.12.1985, which according to the petitioner was never served upon him. Therefore, the Tribunal addressed to the issue about invoking the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal after 30 years of passing the impugned order dated 27.12.1985, which according to him was not served upon. Further, in spite of representations submitted by the applicant/ petitioner, no reply was received. The Central Administrative Tribunal by placing reliance on various decisions of the Apex Court concluded that repeated representations submitted by the applicant cannot be regarded as satisfactory and the contention of the learned advocate for the applicant was rejected placing reliance on decision in the case of K.V.Rajalakshmiah Setty v. State of Mysore reported in [AIR 2007 SC 1330]. That above judgment was again followed in the case of State of Orissa v. Chandra Sekhar Mishra reported in [2003 SCC (L&S) 878] and delay according to the Tribunal remained unexplained for about three decades. Even by entering into arena of sufficient cause whether did exist or not, the Tribunal noticed that no such sufficient cause was pleaded, much less established and reliance was placed on the judgment of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewage Board v. T.T.Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 and that a person who is not diligent about his right or remedy, is not entitled for relief after inordinate delay, for which no sufficient explanation is rendered and sufficient cause was not shown, the original application therefore came to be rejected.