UNION OF INDIA Vs. REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in O.A.No.1583 of 2015 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, aggrieved by the order dtd. 24/3/2023 have filed the present writ petition.

(2.) The 2nd respondent herein, A.Arun, was working as Postal Assistant at Ramanathapuram Head Office, when he was issued with a charge memo dtd. 28/9/2012. It was alleged that he had suppressed deposits in two Savings Bank account when he was working between 5/2/2010 and 7/3/2011 as Postal Assistant at Sub-Post, Uthirakosamangai, to a total amount of Rs.2,600.00. He had then voluntarily credited a sum of Rs.2,600.00 on 8/10/2011 towards the said amount. In this connection, an enquiry was conducted. During the enquiry, one of the witnesses had denied the contents in a statement, in which he had signed as a witness. However, the Enquiry Officer had held that the charges were proved. It was also stated that the 2 nd petitioner herein, Superintendent of Post Office, Ramanathapuram Division had directed the 2 nd respondent to give a reply to the enquiry report by letter dtd. 7/1/2015. The 2 nd respondent denied the charges. However, he was removed from the service by the 2 nd petitioner by order dtd. 25/2/2015. The 2nd respondent filed an appeal before the 1st petitioner herein who rejected the appeal by order dtd. 27/7/2015. Challenging these orders, the 2nd respondent had filed the Original Application before the Tribunal.

(3.) In its order, the Tribunal held that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated since the enquiry was conducted without examining the defacto complainant and without the defacto complainant being subjected to cross examination. It was further held that the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, were not tenable. In view of specific findings of violation of principles of natural justice, the Tribunal had remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority and had further directed to consider the matter sympathetically for imposition of any lesser punishment than the dismissal or removal from service which would rob the employee all of his earned benefits and it was further directed that the respondent authorities should pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.