The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly, and the applicant's admissions led to valid conclusions justifying the penalty imposed.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member(A))

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-

“(1) To call for the records relating to order made in the Revision Petition by the Member(P), Department of Posts, New Delhi the first Respondent herein made in Ref. No.C.17013/13/2017 - VP dated 30-10-2017 served on the applicant on 3.11.2017 in confirming the order made in the Appeal by the Appellate Authority, namely the Director of Postal Service Office of the Post Master General, Southern Region (T.N.), Madurai- 625 002, the third respondent herein made in Memo.No.VG/15-27/13-14 dated at Madurai-625 002, the 24-03-2014 and in confirming the Proceedings of the Senior Superintendent of RMS, 'MA' Division, Madurai-625 001, Department of Posts, the Fourth Respondent herein made in Memo. No.B3/PF/RMJ dated at Madurai-625 001 the 18-07-2013 set aside the same and direct the respondents herein that the applicant is deemed to have been reinstated and continue in service in the post of Sorting Assistant, ACP-I, SRO, RMS 'MA' Division, Paramakudi with continuity of service and all the consequential service and monetary benefits including the consequential notional seniority and promotions which the applicant is entitled to, as if he had been continued in service and disburse all the accrued arrears and the concomittant attendant benefits, within a short date that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

2) To pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

2. The facts of the case as submitted by the Applicant, are as follows, in brief:-

2.1. The applicant, a Sorting Assistant in the Sub Record Office, RMS, 'MA' Division at Paramakudi is challenging the order of compulsory retirement imposed on him by the fourth respondent on the allegations that he was sanctioned Scooter Advance but he did not purchase within one month of sanction and hence the entire amount was recovered from his salary with interest and penal interest. Even though no loss has been caused to the Department, the applicant was charge sheeted under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and disciplinary proceedings was initiated vide charge memo no.B3/PF/RMJ dated 21.03.2013 for the following reasons :-

i. Neither purchased the two wheeler nor refunded the advance amount of Rs. 30000/- sanctioned to him as prescribed in Rules,

ii. Failure to attend MCDP training a Postal Training Centre, Madurai and absented from duty.

2.2. The Applicant states that on receipt of the above Charge Memo, he requested additional time for the submission of the explanation on two occasions of ten days each, one on 27-3-2013 and the other on 22-4-2013. Finally, the Applicant submitted his explanation on 7-5-2013 and stated the reasons for not buying the motor cycle with the advance given to him. He never admitted the guilt of misconduct or misappropriation unequivocally which is a must for plead guilty cases. The Applicant stated in his explanation that he was under treatment for nervous disorder due to epilepsy and that he was suddenly attacked by trance due to which he was helpless. The Doctor has advised him not to drive scooter, due to nervous disorder and due to his health condition he was not able to credit the advance amount with penal interest immediately after the receipt of the letter. The applicant states that in the meanwhile it was intimated that total advance with penal interest has been recovered from his salary. The recovery of advance amount commenced with instalment one month after the date of disbursement from September 2011 onwards for a period of 11 months and the entire amount has been recovered in September 2012 salary and abso