ORDER

Hon’ble Dr. Amit Sahai, Member (A)

1. Being aggrieved by memorandum of charges issued vide order dated 29.07.2009 ( Annexure A/1 ), penalty order of disciplinary authority dated 30.11.2011 ( Annexure A/2) and appellate authority order dated 09.02.2012 ( Annexure A/3) as also the revisional authority order dated 06.06.2014 ( Annexure A/4) . The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, with a prayer to quash and set aside the above orders and to direct the respondents to restore the pay of applicant as on 30.11.2011 at Rs.7610/-+GP Rs.1800/- and refund the amount deducted from the salary of the applicant along with interest @ 18% per annum.

2. Facts of the case in brief are as under:-

2.1 This is the second round of litigation. In the first round, this Tribunal at the admission stage vide its order dated 04.04.2016, allowed the OA at admission stage with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, in its judgement dated 04.01.2017, in D.B. WP(C) No. 15418/2016, filed by the respondents against the order, observed that this Tribunal’s order dated 04.04.2016, does not contain facts of the case and is also non-speaking. Therefore, Hon’ble High Court, Jodhpur, allowed the writ petition by quashing the order dated 04.04.2016, and remanded the matter back to this Tribunal to decide afresh.

2.2 The respondent no.5 issued the first charge sheet dated 02.06.2008 ( Annexure A/5 ) to the applicant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 3 (OA No.290/00266/2015) 1965, alleging that on 16.11.2006, while working as mail peon he took postal bag from Bhilwara RMS for Mandal Sub Post Office and handed over the same to the private MMC (Mail Motor Contractor) a private bus conductor without taking a receipt from him, because of this negligence the postal bag was lost in the transit. Tthe applicant replied to the charge sheet along with copies of letters addressed to the Post Master (Mails), Bhilwara, wherein it was informed that private bus conductors/ drivers/ authorities are not giving acknowledgment receipts of the postal bags received and transported by them. The respondent no.5 appointed Inquiry and Presenting officers vide letter dated Sep, 2008 (Annexures A/7 & A/8 respectively) . Thereafter, respondent no.5 vide Memo dated 16.12.2008 dropped the said charge sheet dated 02.06.2008 without assigning any reason ( Annexure A/9 ).

2.2 After a lapse of seven months, respondent no.5 again issued Memorandum of Charges dated 29.07.2009 ( Annexure A/ 1) on the same allegations that were mentioned in the charge sheet dated 02.06.2008. The applicant submitted his reply dated 04.08.2009 ( Annexure A/10) to the charge sheet. According to the applicant, without considering his reply, respondent no.5 vide orders dated 10.11.2009 and 08.06.2010 appointed Inquiry and Presenting Officers to hold enquiry against the applicant ( Annexure A/11 & A/12 respectively).

2.3 The applicant further avers that in the said enquiry the main witnesses i.e. conductor and driver of the private bus in question were not called for examination to ascertain the truth as to whether the postal bag was lost or not as no complaints of loss of articles in the bag was 4 (OA No.290/00266/2015) lodged. Moreover, no FIR was lodged by the respondent authority for loss of postal bag. After having received the enquiry report, applicant filed his representation on 10.10.2011 ( Annexure A/14 ) as directed by the respondents explaining the position therein that the conductor of the bus was not called as witness in the enquiry and there is no complaint made by the concerned consumers for the loss of any article to the department. Further, he stated that once charge sheet is dropped without assigning any reason, subsequent charge sheet on the same allegations is illegal and contrary to Postal Director General’s letter dated 05.07.1979.

2.4 I