Mandatory adherence to procedural rules in disciplinary hearings ensures fairness and due process for the charged official.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

By means of present O.A., the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-

“(i) The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned charge memo dated 27.8.2007, impugned inquiry report dated 10.11.2008, impugned punishment order dated 20.09.2009, appellate order dated 31.3.2011 and revisional order dated 24.09.2012 with all consequential benefits.

(ii) The Hon’ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to give 18% interest on the payment due to the applicant, in lieu of quashing of all the impugned orders.

(iii) Any order writ, or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Cost of the application may be awarded”.

2. The brief facts of the case are that applicant while working as Postal Assistant was served with a major penalty chargesheet vide memo dated 27.08.2007. Inquiry was initiated against the applicant. Applicant submitted his defence statement to the Inquiry Officer. After completion of enquiry proceeding, Inquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report and proved the charge No.1 against the applicant and disproved the charge No.2. Applicant submitted his written statement against the enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority on 24.11.2008. Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer in respect of charge No.2, which was said to have not been proved. Thereafter Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned punishment order vide his memo dated 20.09.2009 and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service without giving any dissent note or any show cause notice against charge No.2 and himself proved the charge No.2 against the Rule and settled law. Applicant submitted appeal against the illegal and harsh punishment order dated 20.09.2009 to the Director Postal Services, Bareilly Region, Bareilly (Appellate Authority) on 07.10.2009. After the great delay of one and half years, appellate authority rejected the appeal of the applicant vide order dated 31.03.2011 by a non-speaking and unreasoned order. Applicant preferred revision petition to the Chief Post Master General, Lucknow (Revisionary Authority) against the impugned orders of disciplinary authority and appellate order on 18.05.2011. Revisionary Authority without considering the facts and grounds taken in his revision petition rejected the revision petition vide order dated 24.09.2012. All these orders are assailed in this OA.

3. Per contra, respondents have filed counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the applicant was not authorized to receive any cash for deposit and issue of Pass Books to the depositors. Shri Indra Raj Gulati made a complaint dated 5.9.2006 to respondent No. 4 that the applicant had received a sum of Rs. 3,70,000/- from him on 31.03.2006 and issued a receipt on a plain paper by affixing date and stamp of Post Office for opening of account in the name of his family members. The complainant also stated that the desired pass book was not provided. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, a chargesheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA)Rules 1965 was served upon the applicant. Applicant denied the charges levelled against him and therefore Inquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges framed against him. The Inquiry Officer proved charge No.1 but charge No.2 was found to be not proved. Disciplinary Authority after carefully examining the charges levelled against the applicant awarded a penalty of dismissal from service to the applicant vide memo dated 20.09.2009. Against the punishment order, the applicant preferred an appeal, which was re