The Court emphasized the narrow scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, highlighting the need for compliance with rules of natural justice and the requirement for findings to be based on some evidence.

S. Talapatra, J.

By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought judicial review of the judgment and order dated 20.01.2010 delivered in Original Application No.169/2007 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, on the ground that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is based on no evidence and there is no evidence of any statutory period within which the amount so collected is to be deposited and as such there is no basis of temporary misappropriation of the fund as alleged.

But, the Central Administrative Tribunal, while passing the impugned judgment and order, has not appreciated those aspects. For purpose of appreciating the challenge, the essential facts may be laid at the outset.

2. The petitioner who filed the Original Application (OA) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, had challenged the validity of the order dated 01.05.2006 (Annexure-Q) by filing a statutory appeal. The appeal has been dismissed by the appellate authority by the order dated 06.12.2006 (Annexure-O). The petitioner has challenged both the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and sought reinstatement in service with all consequential reliefs, such as back wages etc. in the OA.

3. The facts not in dispute are that, by the Memorandum dated 26.07.2000/31.07.2000 (Annexure-C), issued under Rule 8 of the Postal and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1984, it has been alleged that while the petitioner was working as EDBPM at Rajarbag EDBO, in account associated with Udaipur Court SO, South Tripura, failed to credit an amount of Rs. 15,450 during the period from February, 1998 to November, 1998 in the Government account being the amount of monthly deposits made by 21 RD account holders of the post office. The petitioner accepted the subsequent deposits from various RD account holders without acknowledging the amount by making entry in the pass books or giving receipt in the counterfoil of deposit slip and nor did credit the amount on the date of receipt or on any subsequent date. Twenty two documents and one witness were listed in support of the said charge. The said charge, however, was denied by the petitioner by filing a written statement dated 09.08.2000.

4. On inquiry, the Inquiry Officer, by the Inquiry Report dated 13.08.2002 (Annexure-H) inferred that the charges levelled have not been proved beyond doubt. However, the Director, Postal Services, Agartala, by the order dated 15.04.2004 (Annexure-I), based on the principle of preponderance of probabilities, awarded the penalty of removal from service. Appeal filed by the petitioner on 08.05.2004, was dismissed by the order dated 26.08.2004 (Annexure-J). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision petition to the Member (P), Postal Services Board, New Delhi.

5. By the order dated 05.05.2005, the revisional authority, on observing that the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity of representation, as the Disciplinary Authority recorded its final order on disagreement with the Inquiry Officer’s report, without affording the petitioner opportunity of representation, set aside the penalty and remitted back the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for de novo consideration from the stage of forwarding of the note of disagreement on the Inquiry Officer’s report to the petitioner.

6. In purported compliance of the said direction, the disagreement note was communicated to the petitioner by the communication dated 22.06.2005 (Annexure-L), requiring her to submit her representation, if any, within 15 days. That opportunity was availed by her on submitting a detailed representation dated 08.07.2005 (Annexure-M), stating that the SDI had threatened her with dire consequences. The statement regarding admission of guilt was obtained on duress and threat. Since the penalty imposed by the order dated 15.04.2004 has been set aside by the revisional a