Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 7361
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mohan Pyare, A, Om Prakash, J
Harcharan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Secretary postal and Communication department – Respondent
Original Application No.1429 of 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri S.K. Kushwaha
For the Respondents: Smt Rachna Dubey
Disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring fair treatment and adequate evidence; discriminatory punishment violates constitutional rights.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Dismissal from employment - Applicant challenged dismissal for alleged embezzlement, claiming lack of evidence and procedural irregularities - Inquiry found charges proved, but the applicant contended that witnesses did not support allegations - Court found discrimination in punishment compared to another employee facing similar charges - Orders of dismissal quashed; services treated as duty for pension purposes. (Paras 1, 4, 12, 16, 17)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Requirement for show cause notice before adverse action is taken against an employee - Court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings. (Paras 9, 16)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was charge-sheeted for embezzlement, faced disciplinary action leading to dismissal, and claimed procedural violations and lack of evidence supporting the charges against him. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the inquiry officer's conclusions were not fully supported by evidence and that the applicant's treatment was discriminatory compared to another employee. (Paras 16, 17)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the disciplinary proceedings, the sufficiency of evidence against the applicant, and the fairness of the punishment compared to similar cases. (Paras 12, 16)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the inquiry findings were partially supported, highlighting the need for fair treatment and procedural justice, and that the applicant's dismissal was discriminatory under constitutional provisions. (Paras 16, 17)
Result: The impugned orders of dismissal were quashed, with directions for pension and retiral dues. (Para 17)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and findings. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. discriminatory treatment in punishment. (Para 16) |
| 5. final order and conclusion. (Para 17) |
ORDER
By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
“i. To issue order or direction for quash the impugned orders of punishment dated 05.08.2011 A-1 and appellate order dated 18.11.2011 with all consequential benefits.
ii. To issue order or direction to reinstate the applicant on his original post with back wages and with all consequential benefits to the applicant.
iii. To pass any such/other order as deem fit as per facts and circumstances of the case.
iv. Issue award cost of the petition.”
2. Brief facts of this case are that the applicant was charge sheeted on 26.12.2007 under rule 10 of G.D.S. (conduct and employment) rules 2001, with the allegation that he has committed embezzlement while working on the post of B.P.M, Baroda-Dang. He had been put off duty vide a letter dated 30.03.2007. The respondents also filed an FIR against the applicant on 09.12.2007 at Lalitpur under section 409, 420, 467, 468 IPC. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant by appointing an inquiry officer and vide the finding dated 08.11.2010, all the charges were proved against the applicant. The applicant submitted a defence note against the finding of the inquiry officer. Eventually, the disciplinary authority awarded the punishment of dismissal from employment to the applicant vide its order dated 05.08.2011. The applicant moved an appeal dated 02.09.2011 which has also been dismissed vide order dated 18.11.2011.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant pointed out some relevant facts in his defence note which have been ignored by the inquiry officer. He submitted that p.w.-2 (Shiv Prasad) account holder No. 1125985 appeared in the inquiry and denied the complaint and signature as shown in his complaint and also said he has received all the amount from the postmaster (Sri. Murari Mohan). Sri, Mani Ram Sahu account holder No. 1124510 and Sri. Magan Lal account holder 1124510 and Sri, Jaidev account holder No. 1124549 all did not appear in the inquiry, therefore, the enquiry officer dropped all three witnesses in the enquiry as stated in enquiry sheet dated 04.09.2010. Sri Harsh Jatav was working on the post of Branch post master, Baroda Dang w.e.f. 28.07.2005 after the retirement of Shri Murari Mohan after the refusal of the applicant to work on the post of B.P.M. as per office order 28.07.2005. The post office was also not running in the house of applicant but was running in the house of Ram Kishan on rent w.e.f. 26.03.2002. He argued that the applicant filed application dated 11.08.2009 before the respondents for change of the inquiry officer in the enquiry of Murari Mohan, who was main embezzler of Rs- 1,20,000 because inquiry officer Sri, Rajeev Tiwari, SDI Mauranipur and Sri, Murari Mohan are close and best friends. The respondents have ignored this application. The previous Branch post master, Baroda Dang Sri. Murari Mohan was charge-sheeted for the embezzlement but he had deposited Rs-38,900. In view of that he was acquitted in the enquiry but the disciplinary authority shifted all the charges of embezzlement upon the applicant without any reason and evidence. If the applicant was held responsible in the inquiry of BPM Murari Mohan, why the applicant was not called for cross examination in the inquiry and why Sri Murari Mohan has deposited the entire amount Rs. 38,900 of embezzlement. The sub-divisional inspector, Jhansi issued charge-sheet dated 26.12.2007 against the applicant for alleged embezzlement of Rs. 29,050 bet
