The requirement for absolute integrity in public service mandates dismissal for proven misappropriation, regardless of previous quashing on technical grounds.

ORDER

PER: HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking therein the following relief:

“...to quash and set aside the impugned Memo No.ST/14-107/3/2015 dated 04.04.2017 issued by the 2^nd Respondent upholding the appellate order vide Memo No.ST/13-24/107/2014 dated 24.12.2014 issued by the 3^rd Respondent whereby the punishment of dismissal of applicant imposed by the 4^th Respondent vide his Memo No.F4- 4/2005-2006 dated 30.10.2014 was given a stamp of approval being the same illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently Respondents to reinstate the services of the applicant with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. This is second round of litigation. The applicant alleges that the Respondents have taken liberty under the order, dt.25.03.2013, of this Tribunal, in OA.No.134/2011, whereby the Tribunal had quashed and set aside the punishment of dismissal, imposed on the applicant, on the same set of charges, which have been the subject matter of the second inquiry against the applicant only to prove whether there was any collusion with the substitute arranged by him, in his place, who had committed some financial irregularities as Branch Postmaster. Without there being any finding to the effect that there was collusion on the part of the applicant with the substitute, the 4^th Respondent had imposed the harsh punishment of dismissal.

3. The applicant has filed this OA challenging the revision order, dt.04.04.2017, of the 2^nd Respondent, rejecting the revision petition, by confirming the order, dt.24.12.2014, of the Appellate Authority/3^rd Respondent, whereby the applicant was dismissed from service with immediate effect. The applicant has prayed this Tribunal to quash and set aside the impugned memo, dt.04.04.2017 and order, dt.24.12.2014, issued by the 3^rd Respondent, as well as the punishment order, dt.30.10.2014, issued by the 4^th Respondent. The 4^th Respondent had issued a Charge Sheet to the Applicant under Rule-10 of the GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules, 2001 (GDS Rules, 2001, for short), on 06.03.2006, and had imposed the punishment of removal of the applicant from service, vide order, dt.28.02.2008. Aggrieved with the orders of the 4^th Respondent, the applicant had approached this Tribunal praying to quash and set aside the order of dismissal, dt.28.02.2008. The Tribunal quashed and set aside the order of punishment, imposed by the 4^th Respondent, vide its order, dt.25.03.2013, with liberty to the Respondents “for taking action against the applicant, by framing proper charge against him, in case they so desire”.

4. On 17.09.2013, the 4^th Respondent again issued a Charge Memo, under Rule 10 of the GDS Rules, 2011, by adding simply the words, “in collusion with his substitute who is none other than his wife”, with the same set of charge. On 07.10.2014, the Inquiry Report was supplied to the applicant. The applicant submitted a detailed representation, dt.17.10.2014, against the findings of the I.O., to the 4^th Respondent. The 4^th Respondent imposed the punishment of removal from service on 30.10.2014. The applicant then made an appeal to the Appellate Authority, vide his appeal, dt.24.11.2014, which was rejected by the 3^rd Respondent, on 24.12.2014. The applicant submitted a review petition,