JUDGMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

1. By filling the present Special Civil Application, the petitioner employee has prayed to set aside order 28th April, 2017 in Original Application No. 429 of 2016 as also order dated 21st June, 2017 in Review Application No. 13 of 2017 against the aforementioned order dated 28th April, 2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is prayed to allow the prayers in the Original Application and thereby to set aside order dated 29th October, 2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty of removal from service of the petitioner. It is also prayed to set aside the orders dated 30th December, 2013 and 08th January, 2016 passed by the appellant authority as well as the revisional authority respectively confirming the order dated 29th October, 2012 of the disciplinary authority.

2. In the Original Application, the aforesaid order dated 29th October, 2012 issued by the Senior Superintendent off Post Office, Vadodara Division, order dated order dated 30th December, 2013 by the Appellant Authority the Director of Postal Services, Vadodara and also order dated 8th January, 2016 of the revisional authority the Chief Post Master General, Gujarat were prayed to be set aside. It was a further prayer made to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service by imposing punishment lesser than the removal or dismissal.

3. The relevant facts which could be gathered from the record are inter-alia that the petitioner was recruited as Postal Assistant in the year 1989 in Vadodara West Postal Division and thereafter, worked at various post offices in different divisions. While the petitioner was posted as Postal Assistant in Race Course Post Office, Vadodara, she was served with the charge-sheet dated 16th December, 2012 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. At the end of the regular departmental inquiry, the competent authority passed order of removal from service against the petitioner dated 29th October, 2012. The departmental appeal came to be preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of removal which came to be dismissed by the Director of Postal Services, Vadodara region, which was the Appellant Authority. The petitioner thereafter preferred Revision Application before the Post Master General, which also came to be rejected.

3.1 It was thereafter that the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Original Application as well as the subsequent Review Application both came to be dismissed by the Tribunal to become the impugned orders in the present petition.

3.2 As could be noticed from the article of charges, the misconduct alleged against the petitioner was that while acting as a Postal Assistant, he permitted premature closure of two Senior Citizen Saving Scheme Accounts (SCSS) for Rs. 12,48,935 and Rs. 5,99,341/- without verifying the ledger and relevant particulars to permit double premature closure of the accounts. It was alleged that thereby the government authorities sustained loss.

4. In course of the hearing, the Court was taken through the finding in the report of the inquiry officer about the petitioner having been found guilty on merits in respect of the charges levelled against him, as well as the contents of the decision of the appellate authority and the revisional authority. On careful consideration, the Court did not find any defects such as breach of principle of natural justice, non-consideration of relevant evidence, non-examination of material witness and in absence of any substantive infirmity, the finding of the inquiry officer holding the petitioner guilty of the charges could not be said to have been vitiated in any way.

4.1 Even otherwise, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Ms. Shikha Panchal did not seriously raise the submission in respect of the merits of the finding of guilt of the petitio