The judicial review is limited to procedural fairness, and not to evaluate the substantive correctness of findings in disciplinary inquiries.

ORDER

Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):

1. This O.A has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 against the impugned order of penalty dated 28.02.2022 (Annexure A-1), vide which the penalty of removal from engagement has been imposed on the applicant. The applicant is seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) call for relevant records from the respondents;

(b) declare that the impugned Order of Penalty issued vide Memo No. F-4/4/Bhandal Bet/19-20/Disc. Dt. 28.2.2022 (ΑΝΝEXURE A-1); Charge Sheet issued vide Memo No. F-4/4/Bhandal Bet/19-20 Dt. 05.2.2021 (ΑΝNEXURE A-2); Order-in-Appeal issued vide Memo No. STD-R/44-4/162/2022 Dt. 12.7.2022 (ΑΝNEXURE A-6) & Order-in-Revision, issued vide Memo No. STD-R/44-8/62/2022 Dt. 12.10.2022 (ΑΝΝEXURE A-8) are bad in law, illegal & void.

(c) quash & set aside the impugned Order of Penalty issued vide Memo No. F-4/4/Bhandal Bet/19-20/Disc. Dt. 28.2.2022 (ANNEXURE A-1); Charge Sheet issued vide Memo No. F-4/4/Bhandal Bet/19-20 Dt. 05.2.2021 (ANNEXURE A-2); Order-in-Appeal issued vide Memo No. STD-R/44-4/162/2022 Dt. 12.7.2022 (ΑΝNEXURE A-6) & Order-in-Revision, issued vide Memo No. STD-R/44-8/62/2022 Dt. 12.10.2022 (ΑΝNEXURE A-8)”

2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are that the applicant was engaged as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) Branch Postmaster at Bhandal Bet Branch Post Office, District Kapurthala, Punjab on 29.07.1988. It is submitted that on 05.02.2021 (Annexure A-2), a chargesheet was issued to the applicant under Rule 10-B of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020 alleging misappropriation of funds in certain savings accounts including SSA and SB accounts. It is submitted that the impugned charge sheet suffers from the vice of delay as the acts of misconduct to as back as 2015 & 2016- more than 6 years before the issue of charge sheet in the year 2021. The I.O. was appointed vide order dt. 05.2.2021. He further alleged that the I.O submitted the Inquiry Report after more than 10 months’ delay.

3. The applicant submits that he submitted a detailed representation denying the charges and explaining the factual background of the alleged transactions. He stated that the entries made in the passbooks were under proper procedure and there was no wrongful intention or misconduct on his part.

4. It is further submitted that the Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Respondents and the inquiry proceedings were conducted. The applicant fully cooperated with the inquiry and participated in all stages. However, several of the witnesses (as mentioned at Sl.No . 2, 3 & 4 in Annexure - III did not appear during the inquiry, and their alleged statements were relied upon without the applicant being given an opportunity to cross-examine them.

5. The applicant submits that despite his requests, crucial documents including withdrawal forms, verification reports, and identity proof of account holders were not supplied to him, thus depriving him of an effective opportunity to defend himself.

6. The applicant further submits that during the inquiry, he attempted to produce a defence witness namely Sh. Charan Singh, son of Sh. Amar Singh. However, the Inquiry Officer refused to record his evidence on the ground that the identity of the witness was doubtful. The applicant made efforts to clarify that the names Charan Singh and Charanjit Singh pertain to the same person, yet the IO refused to permit his testimony.

7. The inquiry report was submitted and based thereon, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 (Annexure A-1) imposing the penalty of "removal from