In disciplinary proceedings, tribunal cannot interfere with findings or punishment unless perverse; principles of natural justice satisfied if opportunities provided despite non-cooperation; no mandatory different-division Inquiry Officer required.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon’ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member(A))

This OA has been filed by the applicant, seeking the following relief:-

“To call for the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent in its Memo No. FI/VI- 8/09-10 dated 17.1.2014 and the consequential proceedings of the 1" respondent in its Memo. No. STC/3-12/2014 dated 7.10.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct reinstatement of the applicant with back wages and all other attendant benefits and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and thus render justice.”

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows, in brief:-

2.1. The applicant submits that she joined service as Postal Assistant under the quota meant for direct recruits, on 11.4.2007. She was posted as Sub Post Master, Cement Nagar, Dalavoy. Nature of duties mainly performed by the applicant includes collection of Savings Deposits and withdrawals from Savings Accounts and collection of telephone bills.

2.2. Subsequently, she was transferred from the Sivan Nagar, Dalavoy SO, to the Boiler Project SO, as Postal Assistant. While working as Postal Assistant at the Boiler Project SO, she was placed under suspension on grounds of certain irregularities alleged to have taken place while she was working as SPM at Cement Nagar, Dalavoy SO. However, the said suspension was subsequently revoked by the authorities. While the matter stood thus, on 30.08.2011, she was served a charge memo by the 2^nd respondent containing 4 articles of charge. The sum and substance of the allegations was that, in the year 2009, she failed to deposit, in the Post Office Accounts, after receipt of amounts from 4 depositors, on 18.2.2009, 26.2.2009, 9.3.2009 and 11.2.2009.

2.3. On receipt of the charge memo, she sought the copies of documents listed in the charge memo. Besides, she had also sought certain other relevant documents to substantiate her stand. However, some of the documents were not furnished to her. On the other hand, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to go into the charges. The applicant submits that she was proceeded against exparte and examination of certain witnesses took place, at the first instance, on 3 days. In the meantime, the applicant also sought change of Inquiry Officer. However, during the pendency of her revision petition, pending with CPMG for change of Inquiry Officer, without waiting for the result, the Inquiry Officer once again fixed hearing to examine 6 witnesses on 3 continuous days. The applicant expressed her inability to cross examine the witnesses in view of the pendency of her revision petition seeking change of the Inquiry Officer. But, the enquiry concluded with the chief examination of the witnesses. Later, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report to the 2^nd respondent, holding the charges as proved. Acting on the report of the Inquiry Officer, the 2^nd respondent, in his capacity as the Disciplinary Authority, imposed the punishment of removal from service on 17.1.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred an appeal to the 1^st respondent. The appellate authority, viz., the 1^st respondent rejected the appeal filed by the applicant, thereby confirming the order passed by the 2^nd respondent.

2.4. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the aforesaid relief mainly on the following grounds among others:-

i) On receipt of the chargememo, she had sought certain documents, in addition to those indicated in the annexure to the charges, which would be relevant to substantiate her stand. However, for reasons best known to the 2^nd respondent, only a few documents were furnished to her and her request for other documents was rejected. This has caused serious prejudice to the applicant. Hence, the entire proceedings are vitiated.

ii) Even before furnishing the entire documents, an Inquiry Officer was appointed in great haste. He fixed 3 consecutive dates for exami