RAJ NATH PRASAD Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While petitioner was posted as Sub Post Master, post office Ram Nagar, Varanasi in 1995, departmental proceedings were initiated against him under Rule-14 of The Central Civil Services ( Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 ( in short C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965) in connection with unathorise payment of interest against bogus National Saving Certificates. Ultimately, he was removed from service by an order passed on 10.11.1998. Appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected on 25.7.1999. The revision filed against it came to be allowed on 3.11.1999. The revisional authority found that the enquiry was vitiated on various grounds and, therefore, by invoking the power vested under Rule-29, the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority for conducting denovo enquiry proceedings from the stage of issuance of charge-sheet after removing the defects therein. Consequential orders were passed on 22.11.1999, providing for (i) setting aside the order of removal from service; (ii) further enquiry to be proceeded against the petitioner in accordance with C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965 and; (iii) petitioner was deemed to have been placed under suspension under sub rule (3) of Rule-10 of the Rules of C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965 w.e.f. 10.11.1998.

(2.) Thereafter, a fresh charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 22.11.1999 which was served on 28.12.1999. The petitioner does not appear to have submitted any representation denying or admitting the charges. The enquiry proceedings continued and ultimately the charges against the petitioner were found to be proved in the enquiry report dated 15.12.2001. Since the matter related to the imposition of major penalty, the matter was referred to the Director, Postal Services, Allahabad. Petitioner was served with the copy of the enquiry report and was granted an opportunity to submit his reply. The petitioner submitted his reply on 9.5.2003 and again on 2.6.2003. The subsequent reply dated 2.6.2003 although was not considered by the disciplinary authority but was considered by the appellate authority. Ultimately, an order dated 25.9.2003 was passed, removing the petitioner from service. An appeal filed against the dismissal order was also rejected by a reasoned order of affirmance on 15.6.2004.

(3.) The petitioner challenged the orders dated 23.9.2003 and 15.6.2004, whereby the petitioner has been removed from service, as affirmed in appeal by approaching the Central Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad. The Tribunal considered the matter and found that the order of punishment inflicted upon the petitioner was after holding a valid and proper disciplinary proceedings in conformity with the principles of natural justice and that the order of punishment was passed in accordance with law. Thus, aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.