Disciplinary proceedings are invalid if they fail to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, particularly regarding the accused's opportunity to respond to evidence against them.

ORDER

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

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

“(i) This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to quash the orders dated 06.08.2008, 17.4.2009 and 23.05.2011 passed by the respondents (Annexure No. A-1, 2 & 3 to this Original Application) with all consequential benefits.

(ii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion, increments and all other service benefits.

(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award cost of the original application in favour of the applicant”.

2. During the pendency of this OA, the original applicant Sri Ghanshyam Sharma passed away and thereafter his widow and sons have been substituted in his place by way of a substitution application.

3. The facts in brief are that the deceased applicant was initially appointed as a Postal Assistant in the Postal Department on 20.10.1980. He was placed under suspension on 30.11.1999, which continued until 22.08.2006. During this period, false charges were allegedly framed against him, leading to the issuance of a chargesheet. Deceased applicant submitted his written response to the chargesheet on 25.08.2000, wherein he denied all the allegations. Deceased applicant was in jail and after depositing bailed amount, he was released on bail. The Presenting Officer submitted a written brief on 05.12.2007, to which the applicant responded on 04.01.2008. The Inquiry Officer, in his report, concluded that Charges No. 1 and 2 were fully proved, whereas Charge No. 3 was not established. The deceased applicant filed his representation against the inquiry report on 02.07.2008. Based on the Inquiry Officer’s findings, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 06.08.2008, removing the deceased applicant from service. The deceased applicant’s appeal against the decision of Disciplinary Authority was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 17.04.2009. Further revision pension filed against the aforesaid orders was also rejected by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 23.05.2011. Aggrieved by the aforementioned orders, the deceased applicant has filed the present application.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, in their counter affidavit, submitted that the deceased applicant, while serving as LC IX Postal Assistant at Allahabad Head Office during the period from 17.11.1998 to 12.08.1999, was found involved in serious financial misconduct. It was alleged that he had prepared four ledger cards reflecting fictitious deposit amounts in respect of two (2) Savings Bank (SB) accounts and five (5) Five-Year Time Deposit (TD) accounts. These accounts were shown as existing at Sarai Akil/Birauncha Branch Office (B.O.), but were either fake or had been previously operated in the name of other genuine depositors. Duplicate passbooks were allegedly fabricated without following the prescribed procedural norms and based on forged signatures of the Assistant Postmaster (SB III), Allahabad Head Office. These accounts were then locally transferred to Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth Sub Office using forged signatures of both the APM SB III and the Sub Postmaster, Sarai Akil SO. The deceased applicant was identified as a co-offender in this fraudulent act, which resulted in a financial loss of Rs.4,57,800.80 to the Department. Consequently, he was placed under suspension vide SSPO's Allahabad Memo No. B-1511/99-