ORDER

By Ramesh Singh Thakur, JM.

The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 14.06.2010 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement of service. He is also challenging the order dated 29.03.2011 (Annexure A-2) of the Appellate Authority, whereby his appeal against the said punishment order has been rejected.

2.

The applicant has sought for the following reliefs:

“8.(i) Summon the entire relevant record from the respondents for its kind perusal;

(ii) Set aside the order dated 14.06.2010 Annexure-A/1 and 29.03.2011 Annexure A/2.

(iii) Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefit as if the impugned orders are never passed.

(iv) Any other order/direction may also be passed.

(v) Award cost of the litigation to the applicant.”

3.

Brief facts of the case, as projected in the Original Application, are that the applicant was initially appointed on 06.03.1978 as Group-D employee in the Postal Department.

Thereafter, he was promoted as Postman on 07.07.1979 and Male Overseer on 07.04.1997. While working as Male Overseer, a chargesheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued to the applicant on 09.02.2005 (Annexure A-3) alleging that he has flouted the order of his superior in not delivering the letter issued by Circle Office Raipur to Shri Murari Lal Rowtel, Branch Postmaster, Piparia Kalan (Barhi). The applicant denied the charges levelled against him.

3.1 The Disciplinary Authority proceeded with the enquiry and one Shri R.K. Agrawal, Assistant Superintendent, Post Office, Jabalpur was appointed as Inquiry Officer and Shri S.K. Jain as Presenting Officer. During the course of departmental enquiry, the applicant has categorically stated that he had not flouted the orders of his superior. .After recording the statements of the prosecution and defence witnesses, the Presenting Officer submitted his brief.

The applicant has also submitted his defence brief on 23.02.2010 (Annexure A-6). The Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure A-7) and has proved the allegations of the chargesheet against the applicant. The applicant, on receiving the inquiry report, preferred a representation on 04.05.2010 (Annexure A-8). However, the Disciplinary Authority, without considering the representation of the applicant, has passed an order dated 14.06.2010 (Annexure A-1), whereby the applicant has been compulsory retired from service. The applicant preferred an appeal on 19.07.2010 (Annexure A-9).

3.2 During the pendency of the appeal, the applicant preferred Original Application No.232/2011 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of on 24.03.2011 (Annexure A-10) with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the applicant within 90 days. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 29.03.2011 (Annexure A-2) has rejected the appeal, without considering the grounds raised by the applicant in his appeal. Hence, this Original Application has been filed.

4.

The main grounds for challenging the impugned orders of punishment are that during the course of departmental enquiry, the prosecution witness Shri P.L. Thakur had accepted that the applicant had gone to Piparia Kala Branch Post Office on 19.07.2004 to serve the order of the Circle Office, Raipur to Shri Murarilal Rowtel. Since Shri Rowtel was not available at Branch Post Office, no charge of insubordination can be made out against the applicant. Further, the applicant has produced four witnesses including himself during the course of enquiry, however, the statements of defence witnesses have been totally ignored by the Inquiry Officer in his report. It has also been submitted that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is extremely harsh, excessive and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

The order of the Appellate Authori