Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
B.K. Shrivastava, Judicial Member, Santosh Mehra, Administrative Member
Madan N Deshpande – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. oa challenges punishment; restricted to quantum. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties argue punishment quantum appropriateness. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. limited judicial review; no leniency for financial misconduct. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 28) |
| 4. charges proved; removal justified by authorities. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. depositing misappropriated funds does not mitigate punishment. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. punishment upheld; oa dismissed. (Para 29 , 30) |
ORDER
PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
1. Initially, this OA was filed on 02.09.2024 for the quashment of punishment order dated 14.02.2023 (Annexure – A11) and the appeal rejection order dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure – A13). The relief claimed in para 8 of the OA is as under:-
“i. Quash the superintendent of Post Offices, Haveri Dn, Haveri-581110, Memo No.F2/Iv/II/2019-20 dated: 14-2-2023 Annexure-A11 issued by respondent No.5.
ii. Quash the O/O Post Master General, N.K. Region, Dharwad-580001, Memo No. NKR/VIG/Appeal/072/2023 issued by respondent No.4 – Annexure-A13 dated: 28.07.2023.”
2. At the time of final arguments on 27.01.2026, the applicant counsel submitted that he restrict
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
