The court affirmed that disciplinary proceedings followed natural justice principles, and the penalty of removal was proportionate to the proven misconduct of irregular recruitment.

ORDER 

Hon’ble Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:

“a) The order dated 5th September, 2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 being Annexure-A-23 hereof, be set aside and quashed;

b) The order dated 14th June, 2016 passed by the respondent no. 5, being Annexure- “A-14” hereof, be set aside and quashed;

c) The purported charge-sheet dated 9th March, 2015 issued against the applicant, being Annexure- A-3 hereof, be set aside and quashed;

d) The purported order dated 20th March, 2017 passed by the respondent no. 4, being Annexure- A-16 hereof be set aside and quashed;

e) The purported order of suspension dated 18th February, 2015 passed by the respondent no. 5 being Annexure- A-2 hereof be set aside and quashed;

f) The purported report of Inquiring Authority dated 28.09.2015 submitted by the respondent no. 6 being Annexure A-12 be set aside and quashed;

g) The respondents and each of them be directed to immediately reinstate the applicant in the post of Postal Assistant in Contai Coastal Division with full back wages;

h) Costs of and/or incidental to this application be directed to be borne by the respondent authorities;

i) Such further and/or other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be given, as to this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.”

2. For the sake of clarity, facts in the case as stated by the applicant in his OA, are delineated and discussed hereinunder :-

The applicant was appointed as a Postal Assistant in Contai Postal Division on 22.08.1990 and was confirmed in the service on 18.03.1993.

During the periods from 20.07.2009 to 18.06.2010 and from 25.08.2010 to 28.02.2011, the applicant officiated in the post of Inspector of Post Offices nd and was posted as Inspector of Post Offices (IPOS) of Contai 2 Sub-Division. In addition, he was also given the duties of IPOS, Egra Sub-Division.

While the applicant had been officiating in the post of Inspector of Post Offices, recruitments were made to the posts of Gramin Dak Sevak. The applicant states that after a lapse of more than four years from the completion of such recruitment process, the applicant was suspended in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding proposed to be initiated against him. The order of suspension was followed by a charge sheet issued on 09.03.2015 inter alia alleging that irregularities were committed by the applicant in recruitment of G3.ramin Dak Sevak.

3. The applicant submits that on receipt of the order of suspension and charge sheet, the applicant made representations to the authorities requesting them to supply him copies of all the relevant documents pertaining to charges against him, but the requests made by the applicant fell on deaf ears. The respondent authorities even declined to pay to the applicant subsistence a3l.l1o w ance in accordance with law during the period of suspension.

3.1 The applicant states that the respondent authorities had specifically been requested to supply to the applicant, as many as 40 documents, all of which were relevant in the context of the charges leveled in the charge sheet issued on 09.03.2015, but out of the said documents sought for, copies of only 19 documents were allowed for supply to the applicant and that too, at a much belated stage rendering the applicant unable to effectively meet the charges. Amongst the documents allowed by the Inquiry Officer the inspection reports of the relevant period conducted by the Superintendent of POS, Contai Division were denied on the plea of non-availability. 

3.2 Learned Counsel for the applicant states t