ORDER (Oral)

Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

In this application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is challenging his termination dated 27^th September, 2012.

2. Facts in brief are that;

2.1 The Applicant was working as Gramin Dak Sevak in Mudholi Branch, Bhadrawati Taluka, Dist. Chandrapur. The applicant was charged of misappropriation to the tune of Rs.5302/-. Inquiry was conducted. After the completion of inquiry, Inquiry Report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report of the Inquiry officer that the applicant had committed misappropriation of Rs.5302/- and of Rs.2625/-. Rs. 5302 was shortage of cash and Rs.2625/- was the amount of misappropriation. The Disciplinary Authority terminated the services of the applicant by order dated 29^th February, 2016.

2.2 The applicant is challenging the conduct of the inquiry on two grounds;

i) The applicant was not permitted to examine the defence witnesses.

ii) The applicant had called for some documents and those were not provided to him.

2.3 The applicant contends that these documents were vital documents and they could have thrown lights on the innocence of the applicant.

3. Respondents have filed their affidavit and denied all the allegations. They contend that the applicant was provided with every opportunity for examining the defence witness. However, he did not avail those opportunities and, therefore, the Inquiry Officer cannot be blamed for his failure to examine the defence witnesses. It is further contended by the respondents that the documents at sr.no.1 was already annexed with the Charge Memorandum. The Inquiry Officer rejected the document at sr.no.3 as according to Inquiry Officer it was not relevant. The document at sr.no.2 was not provided to the applicant as according to respondents, the said ID account does not exist. They contend that this shows that the applicant was afforded full opportunity to defend his case.

4. Applicant filed rejoinder to the reply. He does not contend that the document at sr.no.2 does in fact exist.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Dighore and learned counsel for the respondents, Ms. Nalamwar.

6. Learned counsel, Shri Dighore, submits that the applicant was not afforded opportunity for examining the defence witnesses. He submits that the defence witnesses were present on one day but they could not be examined as the defence counsel did not remain present. On the adjourned date, the witnesses did not turn up, therefore, the Inquiry Officer closed the evidence. He submits that the Inquiry Officer should have given him one or two more chances.

7. He further submits that the documents at sr.no.1 to 3 requested by him were not produced before the Inquiry Officer and, therefore, serious prejudiced has been caused to the applicant. He submits that on this count alone, the Inquiry Report needs to be set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that full opportunity was given to the applicant but he did not avail it and, therefore, no interference is called for in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the counsel for the applicant and counsel for the respondents.

10. Admittedly, the Inquiry Officer had given two chances to the applicant to examine the defence witnesses. On the own showing of the applicant, witnesses were present on the scheduled date. However, the defence counsel of the applicant did not remain present on that date. The Inquiry Officer adjourned the inquiry to the next date. On the next date, the witnesses did not turn up. This shows that the Inquiry Officer was constrained to close the inquiry despite giving two chances to the applicant to examine the defence witnesses. To contend that the Inquiry Officer should have given him one or two opportunities is not an acceptable proposition. The Inquiry Offic