IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is 'preponderance of probability', allowing for disciplinary action even if a related criminal charge is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the court's role in reviewing such proceedings is limited to ensuring compliance with legal standards without re-evaluating evidence.

JUDGMENT

G. Satapathy, J.

The petitioner who is a retired employee of Department of Post by filing the present writ has assailed the findings recorded in the Departmental proceeding by praying to quash the impugned order dated 20.03.2017 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 214 of 2011, so also the order dated 29.06.2001 awarding penalty to him in such Departmental proceeding and the incidental orders passed on 18.08.2001 and 31.12.2009 by Sr. Postmaster and Chief Postmaster General respectively as well as, to grant all consequential and financial benefits as due admissible to him including the pensionary benefits, in exercise of extraordinary power under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner while working as a Stamp Vendor in the Postal Department, faced a Departmental Proceeding initiated against him on 02.02.1997 on the allegation of causing loss of revenue amounting to Rs.132/- to the Department by collecting letters and cash towards full payment of postage from different senders of foreign letters on 15.12.1994 and thereby, deriving unauthorized pecuniary benefits. On 02.06.1997, the Senior Postmaster Mr. B.K. Patra was, accordingly, appointed as Inquiring Authority(in short, "IA") to conduct the inquiry and on 31.03.1998, the petitioner requested the IA to supply some relevant documents, but the Senior Post Master expressed his inability to supply the documents. The IA, however, conducted the inquiry and exonerated the petitioner fully by his report dated 17.09.1999, but the Disciplinary Authority(DA) being dissatisfied with the inquiry report by an order passed on 29.11.1999 again remitted the matter back to the IA for conducting further inquiry from the stage of examination of witness Nos. 7 to 10, since they were not examined in the inquiry. Again the IA conducted the further inquiry by examining only Sri B.Digal as state witness No.7, out of the remaining 04 state witnesses because the remaining 03 witnesses did not attend the inquiry despite repeated summons. After a detail inquiry, the IA has again found the Department to have miserably failed to prove the charge against the petitioner and, accordingly, submitted the inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority(DA) on 27.11.2000, but the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with the finding of IA, passed an order on 08.05.2001 holding the petitioner guilty of the charge and thereafter, proceeded to impose penalty by issuing show cause to the petitioner who submitted his explanation on 17.05.2001 by denying the charge and requesting the Disciplinary Authority to exonerate him by accepting the inquiry report furnished by the IA, but the Disciplinary Authority by way of an order passed on 26.09.2001 awarded major penalty to the petitioner by reverting him to the lower post of 'Group D' until he is found fit, after a period of three years from the date of the order, to be restored to the higher post of Postman and the petitioner was, accordingly, reverted to the post of Group 'D' by an order of the Department passed on 04.07.2001. It is relevant to note that the petitioner was also placed under suspension from 17.02.1995 to 05.07.2001 and his period of suspension was treated as such by an order of the Department passed on 18.08.2001. It is also stated by the petitioner that no opportunity was given to him before passing the order for treating his suspension period as such. While the matter was as such, the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar by his judgment dated 19.02.2003 passed in GR Case No. 4146 of 1994 acquitted the petitioner of the criminal charges which was initiated against him on the selfsame allegation as leveled in the Departmental Proceeding, but after his acquittal, on 21.08.2003 the petitioner filed a revision before the Chief Post Master General(CPMG) who by his order dated 02.05.2006 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay in filing the revisio