MR. DIPAK B. PARMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA, POSTMASTER GENERAL AND SENIOR SUPDT. OF POST OFFICE, SURAT DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS OA has been filed by one Dipak B. Parmar for

(2.) THE Applicant has contended that the action on the part of the authorities in dismissing him from service was illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. The Applicant had worked for 12 years without any complaint, honestly and to the best of his ability. The order had been passed to favour some persons, otherwise there was no reason to dismiss the Applicant from service. The Applicant had given leave/sick application and medical certificate in view of his health and he was having sufficient leave in his account but the controlling authority failed to forward his leave application to the sanctioning authority. For Charge -sheet issued for the first time, the Respondent had inflicted the penalty of dismissal from service. The Inquiry Officer did not bring the evidence in support of sick leave and failed to call the material witness and evidence during the inquiry. During the inquiry, the SPM admitted in his deposition that the substitute, J.V. Rathod did not deliver the post. The Applicant was not on duty at that time. The Applicant was not supplied the documents sought by him. The prosecution witness admitted that they have not filed any written or oral complaint against the Applicant. There was no misconduct on the part of the Applicant.

(3.) THE Respondents have submitted that the order of the Disciplinary Authority was a reasoned and speaking order, so also that of the Appellate Authority. The action of the Applicant had damaged the reputation of the Department in the eye of the general public and there was public outburst in the media against the Applicant. The punishment of dismissal was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct on the part of the Applicant. The inquiry was conducted as per the prescribed procedure. The Applicant would remain frequently absent by producing unfit medical certificate later only to get leave. The name of the Doctor and the Dispensary in the medical certificate was not readable. Mere production of Medical Certificate does not mean grant of leave. The averment of the Applicant that witness were not called for examination was incorrect. No one could have prevented the Applicant from signing the Attendance Register if he was present on those days. All the documents relating to the inquiry were supplied to the Applicant. The substitute was responsible for delivered of mails on the days of his working only and not for the mails not delivered by the Applicant on his working days.