Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings limited to process fairness, natural justice compliance, and evidence existence; does not re-appreciate evidence adequacy or substitute views unless perverse or no evidence.

ORDER 

By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-

The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure A- 17) passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby he has been removed from service. He is also challenging the order dated 12.07.2011 (Annexure A-19) of the Appellate Authority thereby rejecting his appeal.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that while the applicant was posted as Sub Post Master in Post Office, Uchehra, a chargesheet was issued to the applicant on 17.11.2008 levelling as many as five charges. The applicant replied to the chargesheet and denied the charges alleged against him. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings by appointing Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer to conduct an enquiry against the applicant. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, the Inquiry Officer submitted its enquiry report vide letter dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure A-15), whereby all the charges, except charge No.2, were found to be proved against the applicant. The applicant represented against the enquiry report vide his representation dated 10.12.2009 (Annexure A-16). However, dissatisfying with the applicant’s explanation, the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure A-17) by which the applicant was removed from service. The appeal preferred by the applicant against the said punishment order also does not meet any fruitful result and the same was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.07.2011 (Annexure A-19).

3. The applicant alleges certain flaw in conducting the disciplinary proceedings on the following grounds:

3.1 He has not been supplied with the documents as demanded by him and, therefore, the applicant could not represent his case effectively.

3.2 The charges were regarding misappropriation of Government money but no proof such as ledger book was produced during the course of enquiry.

3.3 The applicant has not been given reasonable opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the departmental enquiry is against the doctrine of natural justice.

3.3 No one had made complaint against the applicant as also the prosecution witnesses have not made any statement against the applicant. Hence, the charges proved by the Inquiry Officer are without application of mind.

3.4 The Appellate Authority has not considered the applicant’s explanation and rejected the appeal summarily.

4. The respondents have resisted the case of the applicant by making following submissions in their reply:

4.1 The charges against the applicant in brief are as under:

 He made double payment of Rs.39480/- knowingly in RD A/c No.1832469 on 20.05.2005 & 28.05.2005

 He made payment of Rs.1650/- in SB A/c No.390938 whereas the depositor was expired on 24.11.2003 (sic 23.03.2009).

 He accepted 6 RD lots amounting to Rs.53740/- from MPKBY agents namely Smt. Uma Gupta and Smt. Sarita Choudaha, put his sign on RD lots in token of having received the amount and impressed date stamp of the office. Similarly, he made entries of deposits of pass books but he did not take into account Rs.53470/-, the amount of deposits (Rs.3232 on 12.12.2006, Rs.10018 on 12.12.2006, Rs.10360/- on 15.12.2005, Rs.10,000/- on 16.12.2006, Rs.10130/- on 15.12.2006 & Rs.10,000/- on 15.12.2006.

 He passed the withdrawals of Rs.3,89,000/- of SB A/c No.390051, 390567 & 390402 {(Rs.16000/- on 16.08.2003, Rs.40000/- on 18.12.2003, Rs.30000/- on 04.02.2005, Rs.40000/- on 08.03.2006, Rs.30000/- on 07.12.2005, Rs.20000/- on 12.12.2006 and Rs.35,000/- on 02.05.2006)} without pass books and a