ARUN TRIMBAKRAO DESHMUKH Vs. POST MASTER GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second round of litigation before this Tribunal, which has arisen out of the orders passed by the respondents in the departmental proceedings against the applicant. The applicant was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master under the provisions of Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct & Employment) Rules, 1964 (for short EDA Rules), sometimes in the year 1977. In the year 1984 while the applicant was serving with the respondent No. 3 at Jamkeshwar Post Office in Akola Division, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him, for alleged misappropriation of amount and failing to maintain the account books, vide order dated 26.2.1994 of the Complaints Inspector. The applicant was placed under put off duty/suspension, which order was approved by respondent No. 3 on 28.2.1994 vide Annexure A -2. The applicant was subsequently served with a charge -sheet of major penalty on 5.8.1994 under the provisions of EDA Rules. The applicant participated and contested the departmental proceeding on the following charges viz. :-

(2.) IN November, 1996, the Inquiry Officer submitted the report, holding that Charge No. II only stands proved against the applicant and he exonerated him of the Charge No. 1. The report was then submitted to the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 3) who disagreed with the report of the Inquiry Officer so far as it exonerates the applicant of Charge No. 1 and a disagreement note was served on the applicant calling upon him to make his submissions on it. After considering it, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 23.6.1997 (Annexure A -3) held the applicant guilty of both the charges and imposed the penalty of removal from service upon him.

(3.) THE applicant then knocked on the doors of this Tribunal in Original Application No. 2002/2005. By the order dated 16.7.2007 (Annexure A -5) this Tribunal set aside the order (Annexure A -4) of the respondent No. 1 and the matter was remanded to him on the ground that reasoned order was not passed and it was wrongly held that the revision petition was time barred.