UNION OF INDIA Vs. SRIMANTA KUMAR DE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred by the Union of India, the Department of Posts and its functionaries challenging an order dtd. 7/4/2022 passed by the learned Tribunal in an original application being O.A. 350/01249/2019.

(2.) This case has a chequered history. The writ petitioner/the respondent herein, namely, Srimanta Kumar De (in short, Srimanta) was engaged as Gramin Dak Sevak Block Post Master (in short, GDSBPM) at Bansi Chandipur Branch Office in the district of Bankura on 6/4/2010. He was placed under put off duty by an order dtd. 25/4/2012 passed by the petitioner no. 6 herein and such order was confirmed by the petitioner no.5 vide memo dtd. 27/4/2012. Subsequent thereto, a charge sheet was issued against Srimanta on 26/11/2013 containing three articles of charges. During pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, Srimanta refunded the amount alleged to have been misappropriated by him. In the midst thereof, on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Sri Sanjoy Mondal against Srimanta, Joypur P.S. case no.121/13 dtd. 11/12/2013 under Sec. 409/420 of IPC was registered. Challenging the put off duty order, Srimanta preferred an original application being O.A. 1447 of 2013 which was dismissed by an order dtd. 8/7/2014. Aggrieved thereby, Srimanta preferred a writ petition being WPCT 134 of 2014 which was also dismissed by an order dtd. 14/8/2014. As Srimanta"s representation dtd. 11/8/2014 praying for stay of the disciplinary proceedings in view of the pending criminal trial was not considered, he preferred an original application being O.A. 350/01616 of 2014 which was disposed of by an order dtd. 16/12/2014 directing the disciplinary authority to consider Srimanta's representation. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner no.5 passed an order on 29/1/2015 rejecting Srimanta's prayer for revocation of suspension. Challenging the said order, Srimanta preferred an original application being O.A. 350/0544/2014 which was disposed of by an order dtd. 12/8/2015 observing that Srimanta would be at liberty to prefer appeal before the Appellate Authority. Srimanta, accordingly, preferred an appeal on 21/9/2015 and the same was disposed of by an order dtd. 20/1/2016. Alleging non-compliance of the learned Tribunal's order dtd. 12/8/2015 a contempt application was preferred. During pendency of the said contempt application, Srimanta preferred another original application being O.A. No. 00017/2016 inter alia praying for stay of the disciplinary proceeding which was disposed of by an order dtd. 3/3/2016 directing the disciplinary authority to consider Srimanta's representation dtd. 1/8/2014. In compliance of the order dtd. 3/3/2016, the disciplinary authority passed an order on 24/5/2016. Thereafter on 5/7/2017 the petitioner no.5 passed an order observing that there was no bar in simultaneous action of the Court and initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Challenging the order dtd. 5/7/2017, the Srimanta preferred another original application being O.A. No. 491/2016 00017/2016 which was disposed of by an order dtd. 6/2/2018 directing the DA to take into consideration the Criminal Court's order judgment dtd. 30/3/2017 prior to finalization of the disciplinary proceeding. In the midst thereof, an enquiry officer was appointed, who submitted his report on 19/7/2018 to which Srimanta replied. The disciplinary authority thereafter passed a final order on 27/9/2018 imposing a punishment of 'removal from engagement'. Prior to conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, Srimanta preferred another original application being O.A. No. 350/01290/ 2017 and the same was dismissed for default on 18/2/2019. In the midst thereof, the statutory appeal preferred against the same by Srimanta was dismissed by an order dtd. 6/2/2019. Srimanta thereafter filed a revision which was also dismissed by an order dtd. 13/8/2019. Aggrieved thereby, Srimanta preferred the original application being O.A. 350/01249/2019.

(3.) Ms. Ray, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that Srimanta was granted ample opportunity to contest the disciplinary proceeding and that there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice. No procedural irregularity has been pointed out. The orders passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority are well reasoned and there has been no error in the decision making process warranting interference of the learned Tribunal.