Courts cannot review disciplinary decisions based on relevant material, and in cases of corruption, the only acceptable punishment is dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

MATHUR, J.

1. By way of filing present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed validity and correctness of the order dated 10.07.2019 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 dated 30.11.2012 passed by disciplinary authority imposing punishment of 'removal of service' upon the petitioner as affirmed by appellate authority vide order dated 20.08.2013.

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 dated 20.11.2009 under Rule 10 of Indian Postal Department, Gramin Dak Sevak, (Conduct & 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 04.06.2009 in Branch Office, daily account reflecting receipt of Rs.5,00,000 which was forwarded to Accounts Office, Phalodi, Sub-Post Office and later on the same day, the entry of Rs.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 Rs.1.97 crores.

3. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet vide letter dated 24.11.2009 denying the charges levelled against him. An enquiry officer came to be appointed by the disciplinary authority on 31.08.2010. The disciplinary proceedings thereafter were conducted as per the procedure enumerated in the Rules of 2001. The enquiry report dated 23.02.2012 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 dated 29.02.2012 inviting representation, if any. A detailed representation dated 15.03.2012 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 dated 30.11.2012, imposed penalty of ‘removal from service’ upon the petitioner. The appeal dated 19.12.2012 preferred against the order of removal by the petitioner before the appellate authority came to be rejected vide order dated 20.08.2013.

4. An Original Application No.290/000299/2013 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 came to be filed by the petitioner before the CAT challenging the order of removal dated 30.11.2012 issued by disciplinary authority and order dated 20.08.2013 passed by appellate authority. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, vide order dated 10.07.2019 dismissed the original application. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently and fervently argued that the petitioner has been punished for the alleged conspiracy between him and the staff at Post Office, Phalodi whereas no such charge was alleged against him in the charge sheet dated 20.11.2009. Learned co