VIKRAM VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present O.A. is preferred by the applicant under Section 19 of the AT Act with the following reliefs: -

(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents filed their reply and through reply, it is categorically pointed out by the respondents that the applicant while working as Postal Assistant at Kheri applied for one days leave and during that period, he participated in Gherav of Superintendent of Post Offices, Hardoi Division. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents that during that period, he was holding the post of Divisional Secretary of National Postal Employee Union Class III of Kheri Division. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel for respondents that the Gherav was organized at the behest of All India Postal Employee Union, Hardoi Branch and visit of the applicant on 12.12.2002 and 13.12.2002 was without permission of the Competent Authority, as such, the applicant was served with the charge sheet and after due enquiry, the punishment was imposed upon the applicant. The Appellate Authority after considering the appeal of the applicant reduced the punishment and passed a fresh order on 21.11.2005. The outstanding work of the applicant as alleged by the applicant is also denied by the respondents and it is also indicated by the respondents that apart from the present disciplinary proceedings, other disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the applicant during his service period. One such incident is in regard to opening of a fake saving bank accounts. The learned Counsel for respondents has also annexed a copy of the leave application as well as another charge sheet in regard of opening of forged account. The leave application of the applicant said to have been given to the authorities is annexed as Annexure No. CA -2 to the Counter Affidavit which clearly provides the reasons of leave is personal and address during the leave period is 'Dak Ghar Colony, Kheri' On the basis of said averments, it is categorically pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents that there is no illegality in conducting the enquiry and the applicant left the station without prior permission of station leave.

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.