RAJ PAL Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 07.01.2010 (Annexure P- 13) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), holding that the charges of misappropriation/ embezzlement levelled against the petitioner stand fully proved in the departmental enquiry and the punishment of dismissal from service is not unwarranted.

(2.) Before dealing with the legal issue, it would first be necessary to notice few facts. The petitioner has been working as Gramin Dak Sewak Branch Postmaster, Rajowal Branch Post Office, Faridkot (for brevity 'the GDS BPM'). He was placed under put off duty on 10.01.2005. Finally, a charge-sheet dated 26.05.2005 (Annexure P-1) alleging misappropriation of money was issued. A regular departmental eqnuiry was held and on 27.02.2006, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding him guilty of charges. On 09.03.2006, he was handed over an enquiry report and his comments were sought on the report within 15 days. On 20.03.2006, the petitioner submitted his representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer (Annexure P-4). The representation made by the petitioner was rejected and the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of removal from service vide order dated 28.04.2006. Thereafter on 26.05.2005, the petitioner filed an appeal against order of disciplinary authority before the Director of Postal Service (Annexure P-6), which was dismissed on 7.11.2006 (Annexure P-7). Thereafter, petitioner filed revision petition before the Post Master General, Punjab region (Annexure P-8). Still further, the revision petition was dismissed on 16.08.2007 (Annexure P-9).

(3.) Mr. C.M. Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the charge of misappropriation of Government funds is absolutely erroneous as it is based on no evidence. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner never made any admission as is sought to be brought by the Enquiry Officer. Another submission put forth by the learned counsel is that the Tribunal has committed grave error in law by accepting those findings, which are against the principles of natural justice. He has maintained that the complainant who was the material witness, has not been produced by the department, depriving the petitioner of his valuable right of cross-examining him.