KISHAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed validity and correctness of the order dtd. 10/7/2019 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Original Application (OA) No.290/000299/2013, by which the Tribunal dismissed the OA preferred by the petitioner against the order dtd. 30/11/2012 passed by disciplinary authority imposing punishment of 'removal of service' upon the petitioner as affirmed by appellate authority vide order dtd. 20/8/2013.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present controversy are that the petitioner while holding the post of Gramin Dak Sevak, Branch Post Master ('GDS BPM') was served with a charge sheet dtd. 20/11/2009 under Rule 10 of Indian Postal Department, Gramin Dak Sevak, (Conduct and Employment) Rules 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 2001'). In the charge sheet, three charges were levelled against the petitioner. The first charge pertained to an entry made by petitioner at Raneri Branch Post Office on 4/6/2009 in Branch Office, daily account reflecting receipt of â " 5,00,000 which was forwarded to Accounts Office, Phalodi, Sub-Post Office and later on the same day, the entry of â " 5,00,000 was deleted in the Branch Office accounts and balance was reduced. The second charge pertained to not providing receipts of remittances in the treasury book of Branch Office, Raneri, as detailed out in charge No.2. The third charge alleged that the amounts received by Branch Office on certain dates (mentioned in the charge) as reflected in the daily accounts which were not entered in the branch office slips of Accounts Office, Phalodi were not brought to the knowledge of higher authorities by the petitioner, in violation of Rule 21 of Rules of 2001. It was further alleged in the charge sheet that the aforesaid acts facilitated the fraud committed by Sub-Post Master, Phalodi and Treasurer, Phalodi to the tune of â " 1.97 crores.

(3.) The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet vide letter dtd. 24/11/2009 denying the charges levelled against him. An enquiry officer came to be appointed by the disciplinary authority on 31/8/2010. The disciplinary proceedings thereafter were conducted as per the procedure enumerated in the Rules of 2001. The enquiry report dtd. 23/2/2012 came to be submitted by the enquiry officer wherein all the three charges were found to be proved against petitioner. The disciplinary authority served a copy of the enquiry report upon petitioner through letter dtd. 29/2/2012 inviting representation, if any. A detailed representation dtd. 15/3/2012 was submitted by the petitioner reiterating that he was not guilty of the charges levelled against him and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him may be dropped. The disciplinary authority, after analysing the enquiry report and representation of the petitioner, by a detailed order dtd. 30/11/2012, imposed penalty of 'removal from service' upon the petitioner. The appeal dtd. 19/12/2012 preferred against the order of removal by the petitioner before the appellate authority came to be rejected vide order dtd. 20/8/2013.