UNION OF INDIA Vs. R C MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India has challenged order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') while disposing of OA No. 549/HR/2008. The Tribunal had noticed that in the earlier round of litigation the applicant - respondent Shri R.C. Meena had filed OA No.226/HR/2005. In the aforesaid application the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that there was no connivance on the part of Shri R.C. Meena in the shortage of cash and the amount has already been deposited by the defaulter in the Post Office. The Tribunal had pointed out irregularities in holding of departmental enquiry against the applicant respondent Sh. R.C. Meena as the documents were not exhibited and accordingly the applicant - respondent was not in a position to cross examine some of the witnesses. The applicant - respondent was not found responsible for shortage of cash or having connived with the officer and did not played any suspicious role. The only lapse on his part was that he had failed to detect the shortcoming in the course of his official duty while on inspection. For the aforesaid fault, the applicant - respondent was inflicted with the penalty of reduction of his pay by three stages from Rs. 6500/ - to Rs. 6025/ - for a period of three years with cumulative effect with a further direction that the applicant - respondent was not to earn increments during the period of reduction. It is appropriate to mention that applicant respondent Shri R.C. Meena has been working as Inspector in the Department of Posts and a charge sheet was issued to him alleging that while functioning as Inspector he failed to verify the balance of Hassanpur Sub Post Office in various registers where Sub Post Master has shown bogus payment of Rs. 1,30,000/ - in respect of Kisan Vikas Patra. Accordingly the applicant -respondent was found guilty of non -devotion to duty and he acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a government servant. The enquiry officer infact has exonerated him. However, on disagreement note dated 12.8.2002, the disciplinary authority, Director Postal Service, Ambala decided to disagree and imposed punishment of reduction of applicant - respondent's pay by three stages from Rs. 6500/ - to Rs 6025/ - for a period of three years with cumulative effect with a further direction that the applicant - respondent was not to earn increments during the period of reduction. The order was affirmed in appeal. Feeling aggrieved the applicant -respondent filed OA No.226 HR of 2005 in which directions were issued and the operative part of the order reads thus:

(2.) DESPITE the aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal the appellant again passed an order affirming the same order on 23.7.2008. Again order has been challenged in OA No.549 HR of 2008. The Tribunal again set aside the order by holding that directions issued while disposing of OA No.226 HR of 2005 have not been complied with and in the new order passed, the authorities although have reconsidered the earlier order but still it has failed to comply with the directions issued earlier. Despite the specific directions asking the petitioner - authority to inflict some lessor punishment, same punishment has been imposed. Accordingly, the subsequent order dated 23.7.2008 has again been set aside and feeling aggrieved the Union of India has filed the instant appeal.

(3.) AS a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.