By the Court.—Heard Sri Vijay Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.

2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 17.9.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow, in Original Application No. 317 of 2008 whereby the Original Application preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal dated 5.6.2008 has been rejected. The petitioner inter-alia has also challenged the order dated 7th November, 2014 whereby the Review Application preferred by the petitioner has also been rejected including the order of dismissal dated 5.6.2008.

3. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Postal Assistant at Allahabad and while he was working as Sub-Post Master, Post Office Manas Nagar, Lucknow, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.3.2001 by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Lucknow Division, Lucknow (opposite party No. 4) in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 10 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short “1965 Rules”). Thereafter, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 20.4.2001 with the allegations that while he was working as Sub-Postmaster, Post Office Manas Nagar, Lucknow, he encashed six National Saving Certificates (in short “NSC”) of Rs. 5000/- each without obtaining necessary verification of certificates and as such, the Postal Department had suffered a loss of Rs. 20,150/-. The petitioner tendered reply to the charge-sheet denying the allegations levelled against him.

4. It has further been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the meantime, the suspension order was revoked vide order dated 19.7.2001 but the inquiry remained continued. Ultimately, the Inquiry Officer submitted its report on 30.9.2004 and the charges were found proved. After due procedure, the Disciplinary Authority passed the dismissal order dismissing the petitioner from service on 24.6.2005.

5. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.8.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Revision before the Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow (opposite party No. 2), which was also dismissed vide order dated 5.6.2008.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 24.6.2005, 14.8.2006 and 5.6.2008, the petitioner preferred an Original Application No. 317 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the said orders. The Central Administrative Tribunal, vide order dated 17.9.2014 dismissed the Original Application of the petitioner as well as the Review Application.

7. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that both the charges levelled against the petitioner arises out of one incident but both the charges are contrary to each other. The first charge levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner while working as Sub-Postmaster, Manas Nagar Post Office, Lucknow, has encashed two six years NSCs each for denomination of Rs. 5000/- on 19.1.2001 without obtaining necessary verification of certificates under Rule 23(1) of the PO SB Man. Vol-II and thereby committed a grave misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming for a Government servant as required under Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) and (iii) of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1964 whereas the second charge is that the petitioner has made payment of two NSCs for denomination of Rs. 5000/- each without observing the procedure prescribed under Rule 23(2) of the PO SB Man. Vol.-II resulting in loss to the tune of Rs. 20,150/-.

8. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal while dismissing the original application recorded certain factual findings contrary to the reco