The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Rules 2001 and Rules 1965 to the case of a Gramin Dak Sevak, highlighting the error committed by the Disciplinary Authority in invoking the wrong rule.

JUDGMENT :

(P.B. Bajanthri, J.)

Pursuant to the earlier order Mr. Mahesh Pd. Deo, SPOs, Madhubani and Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, Assistant Director, (Establishment and Legal) O/o The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna are present in the Court.

2. In the instant petition the petitioner has assailed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench Patna (in short CAT) dated 20.07.2017 passed in O.A. No. 050/00840/2014 (Annexure 15).

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, while working as Gramin Dak Sevak (for short ‘GDS’) was charge-sheeted in a departmental enquiry on 02.02.2007. Enquiring Authority has opined that charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. On receipt of Enquiring Officer’s report, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Enquiring Officer’s report and proceeded to issue a show-cause notice asking the petitioner’s explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation but it was not to the satisfaction of the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to impose the penalty of removal from service on 14.05.2009 on the petitioner. It was the subject matter of appeal and it was rejected on 19.08.2010. He has invoked remedy under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 by filing OA No. 185 of 2010. It was disposed of while directing the petitioner to file a revision. The petitioner had filed a revision and it was rejected on 31.01.2012. The petitioner is stated to have filed one more O.A. No. 262 of 2012 dated 30.05.2014 and it was decided on 30.05.2014 in which the matter was remanded to the Reviewing Authority. Accordingly, the Reviewing Authority proceeded to pass order on 15.09.2014 in rejecting the petitioner’s claim. Still aggrieved by the decision of the respondent, petitioner invoked remedy before the CAT in filing OA No. 050/00840/2014 and it was decided on 20.07.2017 against the petitioner. Hence the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with the Enquiring Officer’s report has not considered petitioner’s explanation. It is further submitted that Disciplinary Authority has not been empowered to disagree with the Enquiring Officer’s report in the Rules Called Department of Posts, (Conduct and Employees) Rules 2001 (for short Rules, 2001) with reference to Rule 10 of Rules 2001 in the result all the consequential orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority, Revisional Authority and order of the Tribunal are liable to be set aside on the legal issue that Disciplinary Authority is not empowered to disagree with the Enquiring Officer’s report and proceed further in the matter.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Dr. K.N. Singh, Additional S.G. assisted by Mrs. Kanak Verma, C.G.C., submitted that there is no infirmity in the enquiry proceedings and further the petitioner has admitted on two occasions in respect of alleged charge. It is further submitted that Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the Enquiring Officer’s report and disagreed with the Enquiring Officer’s report and proceeded to issue a show-cause notice and obtained explanation from the petitioner and proceeded to impose the penalty of removal from service while invoking Rule 15 of the Central Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1965. Hence, no inference is called for in so far as order of the CAT dated 28.07.2017 passed in OA No. 050/00840/2014.

6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

7. In the light of various Apex Court decisions we are not in a position to re-appreciate evidence in the disciplinary proceedings & only procedural lapses or any violation of rules Tribunals and Courts can interfere insofar as disciplinary proceedings matters are concerned. In the present case learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Disciplinary Authority has exceeded his jurisdiction on receipt of Enquiring Officer’s report wh