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.

ORDER :

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

1. This Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling the records pertaining to the order of the 5^th respondent Tribunal made in O.A. No.310/00657/2014 dated 02.06.2022 and quash the same, consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to settle all the retirement service benefits to the petitioner as if he retired from service on attainment of 65 years of age with effect from 06.02.2016.

2. The brief facts of the case submitted by the applicant before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal are as follows:

2.1. The applicant was initially appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer (in short ‘GDS MD’) at Rayandapuram Branch Post Office a/w Tanipadi SO. He was working on regular basis continuously for about 33 years. Now the applicant is 64 years old. At the age of 61, he was entrusted additional duty of Branch Post Master ( in short ‘BPM’) by the 3^rd Respondent on combination of duty. He expressed his inability to carry out the duty of BPM and requested to appoint a substitute, but was told that they would arrange for alternative within a short period. But, the respondents did not arrange the same.

2.2. The depositor made deposit amounts of Rs. 250, 250 and 250 on 11.08.2011 and 03.09.2011 respectively towards her RD Account to the ex- BPM who was placed under put off but,was not informed to the applicant. Further, due to heavy work, the applicant could not deliver the Speed Post articles and registered articles. Therefore, the applicant was charge sheeted by the 4^th respondent vide Memo dated 27.3.2012. The oral evidence tendered during formal inquiry on 08.06.2012 was not recorded by the Inquiry Officer instead recorded the alleged admission of the charges by the applicant and submitted a report to the 4^th respondent. The applicant did not admit the charges, therefore, he has submitted a detailed written statement to the Presenting Officer’s brief and to the inquiry report. Under such circumstances, the disciplinary authority ought to have ordered for fresh inquiry by affording reasonable opportunity to the applicant. The 4^th respondent was not vested with power to act as disciplinary authority to the applicant since the applicant was ordered to work as BPM. The 4^th Respondent without considering the various points raised by the applicant against the report of the inquiry officer, removed the applicant from engagement. The appeal and revision petition preferred by the applicant to the authorities ended in failure. Hence, he was constrained to prefer an application before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal.

3. The respondents have filed a detailed reply statement before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, which are as follows:

3.1. The applicant while working as GDS MD, Rayandapurm BO a/w Tanipadi SO, was ordered to look after the duties of BPM on combination temporarily w.e.f. 1.8.2011, as the regular incumbent of the post was placed under ‘put off duty’ in connection with irregularities committed in RD accounts. While carrying out the cent percent verification of the BO, it was revealed that the applicant has also committed some irregularities. Pending detailed investigation, the applicant was also placed under ‘put off duty’ with effect from 24.12.2011. After investigation, charge sheet under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011 was issued by the 4^th respondent viz Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Tiruvannamalai Division vide memo No. ADA/PKS/2012 dated 27.03.2012. Though the 3^rd Res