SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 14454

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Chandrakant Bapuji Kirmire – Appellant
Versus
Deptt Of Posts – Respondent
O.A./2242/2016



##PAGE1##

1 OA No.2242/2016

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.2242/2016

Dated this Thursday the 18th of December, 2025.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. SHRI KRISHNA, MEMBER (A)

HON’BLE SHRI UMESH GAJANKUSH, MEMBER (J)

Chandrakant Bapuji Kirmire

Age : 50 Yrs., Occupn:Ex. G.D.S.B.P.M.

R/o Awalgaon, B.O. (Brahmapuri S.O.)

441 206) Distt. Chandrapur. ... Applicant

(By Advocate Shri A.N. Dighore)

VERSUS

1. The Union of India, Through

The Secretary, Ministry of Communication,

Department of Post, Dak Bhawan,

New Delhi – 110 001.

2. The Chief Post Master General,

Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai – 400001.

3. The Post Master General,

Nagpur Region, Nagpur – 440 010.

4. The Sr. Superintendent of Post

Offices, Chanda Division, Chandrapur

: 442 401.

5. The Sub Divisional Inspector of Post

Offices, East Sub Division,

Mil Aan lp hJa ac nk ss oon DD3P6MRLDF0b oooiN eaig lf7 cxsaat7: eaict tns tdaCa : 9 to Pi9l lJo2= 2C ny1 Dan06I : oN9 c s :2F9Id c ki, 5f g a e8es RO .n m= 1o41 ee= 24n0 adP t.0 e h dA 1ed1b e el2r7 py r s a10 f8 ho VM u03ban5 et:,di nh1 lae ra S9s so7l7n, o4= ir :b o O 2cMJ oc n7 5aI f5 :aD 6 + c t6 2h h3 0.k2 0a i8 5s s3 2r0 'o5 34d6n 0sd4 .o9 h 'fA c916t 0ul r6ep5a m14h=, 08a e0S80n n8E32s t1Rbo581IaA781L690N8aea4Ufcd0M1a58Be7458E8 bR48d=c29306 fdf89 7f205dd741cc 83f b9d864bbf0a1 b51f8d6bc4,, ,P Cho Nn =e= Bramhapuri, Dist, Chandrapur. ... Respondents

(By Advocate Shri P.H. Khobragade)

##PAGE2##

2 OA No.2242/2016

ORDER

Per: Shri Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

The applicant, before this Tribunal, is

challenging the punishment order dated 31.05.2007

issued by the Disciplinary Authority imposing

punishment of dismissal from service, Appellate

order dated 12.05.2008, Revisionary order dated

31.08.2009 and order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the

Reviewing Authority.

2

. Brief facts of the case are that on the

allegation of misappropriation amount of Rs.4167/-

and with the allegation of withdrawal of this

aforesaid amount through forged signature by the

applicant, charge sheet dated 30.04.2004 was issued

to the applicant. Thereafter, Inquiry Officer and

Presenting Officer were appointed. Departmental

inquiry was conducted and punishment of dismissal

has been awarded to the applicant which was affirmed

by the higher statutory authorities. Challenging

the aforesaid orders, it is the submission of the

Mil Aan lp hJa ac nk ss oon DD3P6MRLDF0b oooiN eaig lf7 cxsaat7: eaict tns tdaCa : 9 to Pi9l lJo2= 2C ny1 Dan06I : oN9 c s :2F9Id c ki, 5f g a e8es RO .n m= 1o41 ee= 24n0 adP t.0 e h dA 1ed1b e el2r7 py r s a10 f8 ho VM u03ban5 et:,di nh1 lae ra S9s so7l7n, o4= ir :b o O 2cMJ oc n7 5aI f5 :aD 6 + c t6 2h h3 0.k2 0a i8 5s s3 2r0 'o5 34d6n 0sd4 .o9 h 'fA c916t 0ul r6ep5a m14h=, 08a e0S80n n8E32s t1Rbo581IaA781L690N8aea4Ufcd0M1a58Be7458E8 bR48d=c29306 fdf89 7f205dd741cc 83f b9d864bbf0a1 b51f8d6bc4,, ,P Cho Nn =e= applicant that during the course of inquiry, all

the documents were not supplied to the applicant

##PAGE3##

3 OA No.2242/2016

and, more particularly, the copies of Exhibit P-6

and P-7 were not supplied and, therefore, the

applicant was denied a reasonable opportunity of

hearing.

2.1

It is also submitted that the alleged

complaint dated 05.06.2003 which was the foundation

or basis of the instant charge sheet has not been

included in the list of documents and no such

documents were shown to the applicant during the

whole process of inquiry. Further, it was alleged

that the signature appearing on SB-7 withdrawal

form is fabricated one but such allegations are not

proved at any point of time. It is submitted that

as per the provisions of Rule 14(14) of

CCS(CCA)Rules, 1965, the oral and documentary

evidence by which articles of charge are proposed

to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of

the Disciplinary Authority. But in the instant

case, the alleged complaint dated 05.06.2003 is not

at all produced as an evidence and thus violated

Mil Aan lp hJa ac nk ss oon DD3P6MRLDF0b oooiN eaig lf7 cxsaat7: eaict tns tdaCa : 9 to Pi9l lJo2= 2C ny1 Dan06I : oN9 c s :2F9Id c ki, 5f g a e8e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top