M SRINIVASAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus praying for passing of an Order by this Court relating to the Order of the 3rd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai made in O.A.No.773 of 2011 dated 03.07.2014 and to quash the same. Further, the Petitioner has also sought for passing of an Consequential Order in directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate him into service with all service benefits. The 3rd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench while passing the Order in O.A.No.773 of 2011 dated 03.07.2014 (filed by the Petitioner/Applicant) in Paragraph No.10 had observed the following and resultantly dismissed the Original Application.

(2.) Assailing the validity and legality of the Order dated 03.07.2014 in O.A.No.773 of 2011 passed by the 3rd Respondent /Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the charges levelled against the Petitioner are vague and not specific and furthermore, a single charge is split up into three charges to make it appear more serious one. As such, the action of the 2nd Respondent/Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Tambaram Division, Tambaram, Chennai - 45 is arbitrary and illegal one.

(3.) The Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that before issuing charge sheet to the Petitioner, the Petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- into Post Office Account's by the 2nd Respondent/Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chennai as per his Order dated 21.05.2009 alleging contributory negligence. As a matter of fact, the charge was framed against the Petitioner on 02.06.2009 and therefore, it is evident that the 2nd Respondent / Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chennai had already made upon his mind to punish the Petitioner and thereby the 'Inquiry Officer' conducted the 'Inquiry' in total violation of the Principles of Natural Justice with a view to get their desired result. However, these aspects were not taken into account by the 3rd Respondent/Administrative Tribunal at the time of passing of the Order in Original Application.