Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10871
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rameshwar Vyas, J, Amit Sahai, A
Rajesh Kumar Azad – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Secretary, Department of Posts – Respondent
Original Application No.463/2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Nitin Trivedi
For the Respondents: Mr. K.S.Yadav
Disciplinary procedures were upheld as fair; substantial evidence of misappropriation justified the dismissal of the applicant.
Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14 - Disciplinary proceedings - Dismissal from service - Applicant challenged dismissal due to irregularities in accounting - Charges of misappropriation found substantiated - Inquiry found legitimate and fair, upholding disciplinary authority's decision. (Paras 1-21)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Adequate opportunity to present defense must be provided - Non-allowance of certain defense witnesses contested - Inquiry done according to rules; applicant's claims deemed insufficient. (Paras 5, 10, 20)
Facts of the case:
Applicant was dismissed from service for misconduct linked to mismanagement and misappropriation of funds during tenure as Sub Post Master - Multiple charges included unauthorized collection of deposits and failure to account for funds received.
Findings of Court:
Inquiry was exhaustive, allowing the applicant ample opportunity to defend against charges; decision to dismiss was affirmed as just.
Issues: The legality of disciplinary procedure and fairness in the inquiry process concerning witness account; total quantum of misappropriation addressed.
Ratio Decidendi: Burden of proof for mismanagement rests on applicant; proven charges warrant disciplinary action, despite applicant's defenses presented.
Result: O.A. dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of dismissal and misconduct charges against the applicant. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. claims of unfair proceedings and lack of natural justice presented by the applicant. (Para 5 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. court's evaluation of the inquiry process and justifications for disciplinary actions. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 20) |
| 4. final judgment affirming the appropriateness of disciplinary action taken. (Para 21) |
ORDER
Per Rameshwar Vyas :
Being aggrieved by order of dismissal from service dated 23.09.2013 (Annex.A/1) passed by the disciplinary authority as also the order of the appellate authority dated 03.09.2014 (Annex. A/2), rejecting the appeal filed by the applicant, the applicant, has preferred this OA with a prayer to quash and set aside the above order and reinstate him in service from the date of dismissal with consequential benefits.
2. Facts of the case in brief are as under
3. The applicant while working as Sub Post Master at Mandalgarh Sub Post Office, was placed under suspension vide order dated 15.10.2010. Contemplating the disciplinary inquiry against him with regard to not accounting for the money deposited by the account holders, a Charge Memorandum dated 29.12.2011 (Annex.A/10), containing four charges were framed against him to the effect that while serving as Sub Post Master at the Mandalgarh Post Office, he performed the work of Postal Assistant un-authorisedly and received Rs. 31,810/- from a group leader Mr. Gopal Swaroop Vaishnav.
As per the second charge while working as Postal Assistant at Mandalgarh Sub Post Office on 30.12.2009,the applicant received Rs. 1,530/- from an account holder Smt. Sati K.P.wife of Mr. Prakash Chand Kankaria, to be deposited in her RD A/c but, he did not account for the money in the ledger though after receiving the amount, he returned the pass book after credit entry with seal.
As per the third charge, while serving as Sub Post Master, he received Rs. 3,379/- from the policy holders of four Postal Life Insurances on 09.02.2002, but did not make entries in the record to this effect.
As per the last charge, while serving as Sub Post Master, Mandalgarh Sub Post Office, on 30.09.2008, he received an amount of Rs. 2,125/- from a Postal Life Insurance policy holder i.e. Mr. Prakash Chandra Moondra but accounted for only Rs. 835/-.
4. Based upon the above charges, Memo was issued against the applicant under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as “The Rules of 1965”].He denied the charges vide letter dated 06.01.2012 (Annex.A/11). Thereafter, vide letter dated 15.02.2012 (Annex.A/12), Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, ASP (W) Bhilwara, was nominated to present the case in support of the charges. On the same date the inquiry officer Mr. S.L. Meena, ASP, Bhilwara (HQ) was appointed as an inquiry officer. After inquiry, the charges framed against the applicant were found proved by the inquiry officer. A copy of the inquiry report dated 22.06.2013 (Annex.A/13) was provided to him vide letter dated 27.06.2013. He was provided fifteen days‟ time to represent against the inquiry report. Vide representation dated 19.07.2013 (Annex.A/14),the applicant made a representation against the inquiry report to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhilwara Division. The respondent No. 3, after considering the inquiry report passed an order dated 23.09.2013 (Annex.A/1), dismissing the applicant from service while exercising his powers under Rule 12 (2) of the Rules of 1965. The appeal (Annex.A/15) filed by him was rejected vide order dated 03.09.2014 (Annex.A/2).
5. Being aggrieved by the above orders, he has preferred this O.A., interalia, on the ground that the proposed punishment imposed upon him vitiated the impugned punishment. The applicant was not provided an opportunity to produce Sh. Ajeet Singh Joshi, as his defence witnesses, working as a GDS, at the same place, which is a violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent Depa
