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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's background and removal due to alleged misconduct. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments made by the petitioner regarding due process and rules. (Para 3 , 4 , 8) |
| 3. court's acknowledgment of procedural fairness. (Para 5 , 14) |
| 4. rules governing conduct and penalties for gramin dak sevaks. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. final ruling confirming tribunal’s decision and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 17 , 18) |
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 Discip
The disciplinary authority's findings were upheld, affirming that the process followed was fair and the penalties imposed were justified based on proven misconduct.
Financial misconduct by postal GDS proved by documents and admissions justifies removal from service; no leniency despite repayment, as integrity in public money handling demands strictness; courts i....
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.
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings limited to natural justice and evidence existence; punishment modified from removal to termination for GDS misconduct.
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
