ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member)

Heard Mr. B Gurudas, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. B Gayatri Varma, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By this Original Application the applicant is seeking the following relief(s):-

“to call for the records pertaining to the 4th Respondent Punishment Order vide Memo. No. F4-3/2006-07 dt. 19-6-2013(A- I) issued on the basis of Charge Memo No. F4-3/2006-07 dt. 18-6-2008(A- IV), 3rd Respondent Memo. No. PMG(H)/ST/21-3/239/JA/NLG/13 dt. 31-12- 2013 (A-II) and 2nd Respondent Memo. No. PMG(H)/ST/22- 3/119/J.A./NGD/14 dt.14-5-2015 (A-III) confirming the punishment and declare the action of the 4th Respondent in not considering the submissions of the Applicant and awarding the heavy penalty of "Removal from service" confirmed by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Rules and instructions prescribed and in violation of principles of natural justice and the Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside and quash the said penalty with a consequential direction to the Respondents to reinstate the Applicant into service immediately with all service benefits and pass such other and further or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:

The applicant worked as a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster in the office of the respondent w.e.f 05.02.1986 to 06.12.2006. While working as a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (for short GDS BPM) at Veeravally Branch Post Office Account with Bhongir Head Post Office, during the period from 01.08.2005 to 05.12.2006, the alleged fraud has been noticed in respect of the Saving Banks (SB) / Recurring Deposit (RD) accounts and Rural Postal Life Insurance (RPLI) in the form of permanent misappropriation of Rs. 2,463/- and temporary misappropriation of Rs. 50,000/-, total to a tune of Rs. 52,463/-. An amount of Rs. 2,463/- was credited under the Unclassified Receipts (UCR) vide receipt No. A.907 dated 10.09.2007 for Rs. 1,070/- and UCR No. A.908 dated 14.09.2007 for Rs. 1,393/- at Bhongir Head Post Office. Thereby, the applicant was kept off-duty on 06.12.2006 and on completion of past work verification of the applicant, a charge memo under Rule-10 of the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct & Employment) Rules, 2001, was issued on 18.06.2008. Subsequently, the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed and accordingly after the completion of the inquiry, the IO submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority who, vide proceedings dated 19.06.2013, imposed a penalty of “Removal from Service”.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, against the said order, the applicant preferred an appeal to the 3^rd Respondent dated 07.08.2013, but the same was rejected by the order dated 31.12.2013. The applicant again filed a revision petition against the order of the appellate authority, but the same was also rejected by the 2^nd Respondent vide its order dated 14.05.2015. The applicant further submitted that while conducting the inquiry, due process of law has not been followed as the main witnesses have not been called in the witness box. Being aggrieved, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing the present O.A. and prayed for the aforesaid relief.

5. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel, filed a detailed reply and opposed the relief on the ground that the applicant while proceeding on leave, appointed his own son as a substitute, has caused misappropriation as well as damage to the department in the absence of the applicant. Though it has been done by the substitute, as per the rule, the applicant is held responsible for such activities against which, out of five charges, three have been done by the substitute and two have been done by the applicant, which has been accepted by the applicant himself. Even for the ac