Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, M.JOTHIRAMAN
A. Sankar – Appellant
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Rep by its Registrar – Respondent
ORDER :
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
Under assail is the order dated 02.08.2019 in OA.No.1139 of 2014 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai bench. The unsuccessful applicant before the Tribunal has preferred the present writ petition before this Court.
The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows :-
2(i). The petitioner was working as GDS BPM @ Thavalaveeranpatti branch post office from 03.04.1988 onwards. On 13.02.2013, the Inspector of Posts, Manapparai Sub Division had inspected the Post Office and placed him under put off duty and it was ratified by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Karur Division. The respondents had issued charge memo under Rule 10 of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct & Engagement) Rule 2011 with two charges. After conducting enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority had removed the petitioner from service on 30.12.2013. The main charges levelled against him was shortage of amount of Rs.16,899.35. When the Mail Overseer inspected the office, since the building in which the BPO was functioning was in a damaged condition, he had kept the amount safely in his residence. Even though, he stated the above facts to the Main overseer he did not permitted him to take
The disciplinary authority's findings were upheld, affirming that the process followed was fair and the penalties imposed were justified based on proven misconduct.
The court affirmed the necessity of stringent penalties for corruption within public service, emphasizing that admissions of guilt during inquiries mitigate claims of unjust treatment.
Negligence does not constitute misconduct unless proven intentional or abusive of discretion; mere error of judgment is insufficient for disciplinary action.
The court emphasized that it would be unjust, unfair, and oppressive to allow the findings in the departmental proceedings to stand when the case against the petitioner could not be established in a ....
Regulation 7(2) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ Regulation, 1977 did not stipulate granting of an opportunity to represent against disagreement recorded by Disciplinary Authority.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
