A delinquent officer has a right to engage an advocate to represent him in disciplinary proceedings, unless there are considerations of public policy overriding the claims of natural justice in any particular class of matters or a case.

GOPAL RAO EKBOTE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the 2nd respondent i. e, the Superintendent of post offices, Chittoor dt, 13-7-69 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service as confirmed by the order of the 1st respondent i. e the director of Postal Services, Andnra Pradesh, dt. 29-10-1969.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are that the petitioner joined the Postal department as a postman in 19-14 He was then promoted as clerk in 1958. On 18-3-1969, as there was shortage of hands in Madanapalli sub Post office where the petitioner was working, he attended the office from 7-30 a m. that, day and worked till 1-30 p. m. in the registration Branch. He banded over Registration branch seat to the Parcel Clerk Sri V. Venkataramaiah at 1-30 P. M. After finishing his iunch, he returned to the office at about 1-45 P, M. and contacted sri V. Venkataramaiah. He then proceeded with the registration work that day, He found that Sri V, Venkataramaiah had registered in all four letters. When he asked about the articles, Sri v. Venkatararmaiah stated that he sorted them and placed them in the sorting box At the time of closing the work the petitioner wanted to prepare the extract, he found shortage of one registered article and enquired from sri V. Venkasaramaiah and informed the head Clerk A search was then made. An entry in the error book was made on 18-3-1969 and it was shown to the Head Clerk. The head Clerk however did not sign it. That very day the petitioner informed the Sub-Postmaster about the shortage of the registered article. Inspi e of search, the registered article was missing, that is to say registered letter No. 97. was not traced.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was served with a charge memo. dt. 28-4-1969, Two charges were framed against him. One was about the missing of the said registered letter for which responsibility was sought to be cast on the petitioner ; and secondly for not appropriately making entries in the relevant books. On 9-5-1969 the petitoner filed his explanation He denied the allegations and explained the position. During the pendency ot the enquiry, he filed a letter on 27-5-69 requesting the Enquiry Officer to permit him to engage an advoca e, He referred therein that the matter is complicated and involves questions of law. No order, however, seems to have been passed on that letter, Enquiry was made on 30-5-69 and 31-5-69, four witnesses were examined. The petitioner cross-examined them on that very day, the petitioner was placed under suspension.

( 4 ) ON the basis of this material, the punishing authority came to the provisional conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said two charges and proposed a punishment of dismissal from service. So on 3-6-1969 a provisional notice was given to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why he should not he dismissed from service. The petitioner made a request on 9-6-1969 in provide him with cooies of the depositions which were given. He then filed another letter on 17-6-1969 requesting the Enquiry officer to permit him to take the services of departmental officer whom he named in the letter. He was, however informed that that being the second stage of the enquiry and as the enquiry was com pleted no question of granting any permission to take the assistance of a departmental officer arose. Permission thus was refused. The petitioner then on 5-7-69 submitted his explanation. On the bask of the said material the punishing authority passed an order on 13-7-1969 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service, The petitioner it seems had about eight years service still to complete.

( 5 ) THE petitioner went in appeal to the Director of Postal services. The appeal was however rejected on 29-10-1969. It is these orders of the primary and appellate authorities that are challenged in this writ petition.

( 6 ) THE principal contention of Sri S V. Koadapi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document