MD. ZAKRIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a retired employee of Department of Post by filing the present writ has assailed the findings recorded in the Departmental proceeding by praying to quash the impugned order dtd. 20/3/2017 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 214 of 2011, so also the order dtd. 29/6/2001 awarding penalty to him in such Departmental proceeding and the incidental orders passed on 18/8/2001 and 31/12/2009 by Sr. Postmaster and Chief Postmaster General respectively as well as, to grant all consequential and financial benefits as due admissible to him including the pensionary benefits, in exercise of extraordinary power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner while working as a Stamp Vendor in the Postal Department, faced a Departmental Proceeding initiated against him on 2/2/1997 on the allegation of causing loss of revenue amounting to Rs.132.00 to the Department by collecting letters and cash towards full payment of postage from different senders of foreign letters on 15/12/1994 and thereby, deriving unauthorized pecuniary benefits. On 2/6/1997, the Senior Postmaster Mr. B.K. Patra was, accordingly, appointed as Inquiring Authority(in short, "IA") to conduct the inquiry and on 31/3/1998, the petitioner requested the IA to supply some relevant documents, but the Senior Post Master expressed his inability to supply the documents. The IA, however, conducted the inquiry and exonerated the petitioner fully by his report dtd. 17/9/1999, but the Disciplinary Authority(DA) being dissatisfied with the inquiry report by an order passed on 29/11/1999 again remitted the matter back to the IA for conducting further inquiry from the stage of examination of witness Nos. 7 to 10, since they were not examined in the inquiry. Again the IA conducted the further inquiry by examining only Sri B.Digal as state witness No.7, out of the remaining 04 state witnesses because the remaining 03 witnesses did not attend the inquiry despite repeated summons. After a detail inquiry, the IA has again found the Department to have miserably failed to prove the charge against the petitioner and, accordingly, submitted the inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority(DA) on 27/11/2000, but the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with the finding of IA, passed an order on 8/5/2001 holding the petitioner guilty of the charge and thereafter, proceeded to impose penalty by issuing show cause to the petitioner who submitted his explanation on 17/5/2001 by denying the charge and requesting the Disciplinary Authority to exonerate him by accepting the inquiry report furnished by the IA, but the Disciplinary Authority by way of an order passed on 26/9/2001 awarded major penalty to the petitioner by reverting him to the lower post of 'Group D' until he is found fit, after a period of three years from the date of the order, to be restored to the higher post of Postman and the petitioner was, accordingly, reverted to the post of Group 'D by an order of the Department passed on 4/7/2001. It is relevant to note that the petitioner was also placed under suspension from 17/2/1995 to 5/7/2001 and his period of suspension was treated as such by an order of the Department passed on 18/8/2001. It is also stated by the petitioner that no opportunity was given to him before passing the order for treating his suspension period as such. While the matter was as such, the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar by his judgment dtd. 19/2/2003 passed in GR Case No. 4146 of 1994 acquitted the petitioner of the criminal charges which was initiated against him on the selfsame allegation as leveled in the Departmental Proceeding, but after his acquittal, on 21/8/2003 the petitioner filed a revision before the Chief Post Master General(CPMG) who by his order dtd. 2/5/2006 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay in filing the revision. The petitioner, however, challenged such order of CPMG before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 839 of 2006, wherein the learned Tribunal quashed the order of CPMG dtd. 2/5/2006 and directed him to consider and dispose of the revision petition of the petitioner afresh on merit by way of a speaking order. Pursuant to such order of the learned Tribunal, the Chief Post Master General by way of a detailed and speaking order dtd. 31/12/2009 rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner, however, claiming such order of the Revisional Authority-cum-OP No.2 to be illegal, arbitrary and gross-violation of natural justice had challenged the same before the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 214 of 2011. According to the petitioner, his punishment was in gross-violation of Rule 14(15) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, but the learned Tribunal passed order on 20/3/2017 in O.A. No. 214 of 2011 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner by concluding inter alia that the Tribunal cannot re-appreciate the evidence and reach its own conclusion and the order of Disciplinary Authority passed a decade back and the delinquent employee having already undergone the punishment, it cannot alter such punishment. The learned Tribunal by the impugned order has also further assigned that the Disciplinary Authority as well as Revisional Authority have assigned valid reasons for finding the petitioner guilty of the charge in Departmental Proceeding and by holding so, the learned Tribunal accordingly dismissed the O.A. No. 214 of 2011. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioner.

(3.) In response to the notice of the writ petition, OP Nos. 1 to 3 have filed their joint counter affidavit denying all the allegations made by the petitioner and inter alia contending that the request of the petitioner for additional documents had been well considered by the IA and all reasonable opportunity had been given to the petitioner to prove his innocence through the documents listed in the Departmental Proceeding and the Disciplinary Authority had also communicated the reasons to the petitioner with regard to disagreement with the finding of the IA and the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of material evidence had held the petitioner guilty of the charge and accordingly awarded penalty to the petitioner in the Departmental Proceeding and after award of penalty, the period of suspension of the petitioner was regularized as such basing on the Rules and provisions of the Department. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Departmental Proceeding was concluded before conclusion of trial in the criminal case and the Departmental Proceeding can run independently of the criminal charges. It is also noted in the counter affidavit that the finding in the Departmental Proceeding has been confirmed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 214 of 2011 and the claim of the petitioner being unmerited, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.