In disciplinary proceedings for misappropriation, judicial review is limited; cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute views if inquiry fair, findings based on some evidence, and punishment proportionate. Possible view by authorities upheld. (28 words)

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

The present original application has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following reliefs:-

“(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records from the respondents and quash the impugned order dated MANISH KUMAR 29.12.1995 issued by respondent No. 3 and also order dated 21.1.2014 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure A-5 and A-16 of compilation 1 to this original application respectively).

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and directing to them to reinstate the applicant in service with consequential relief of the salary and allowances.

(c) Isue a suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(d) Allow the application with costs”.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master on 22.10.1975. He was put off duty on 22.05.1995 and a charge-sheet was issued on 18.07.1995. After enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 26.10.1995. Despite the applicant’s representation, the respondent no. 3 dismissed the applicant from service on 29.12.1995. The appeal filed by the applicant was rejected on 22.07.1996. The review petition and memorial were also rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant filed O.A. No. 675 of 2001, which was partly allowed by this Tribunal on 29.08.2006. The appellate order, review order and memorial rejection were set aside and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. The writ petition filed by the respondents against the order of the Tribunal was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court with costs. However, in disregard of the spirit of the Tribunal’s order, the appellate authority again dismissed the appeal on 21.01.2014 and affirmed the dismissal order dated 29.12.1995. Hence, the present Original Application has been filed challenging the dismissal order dated 29.12.1995 and the appellate order dated 21.01.2014.

3. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have stated that the applicant was working as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master at Sihari Sardaha Branch Post Office during January 1995 to May 1995. On a complaint received from the Sub Postmaster, Saltauwa Sub Post Office, a preliminary inquiry was conducted. During verification, a shortage of Post Office cash amounting to Rs. 4,480/- was found. Further, an insured letter containing Rs. 5,000/- was also found missing and was neither delivered to the addressee nor available in the Post Office. Thus, a prima facie case of misappropriation of Government and public money to the tune of Rs. 9,480/- was established against the applicant. Accordingly, he was put off duty on 24.05.1995 and disciplinary proceedings under the relevant rules were initiated. The applicant denied the charges and a regular inquiry was conducted after giving full opportunity of hearing. The Inquiry Officer found the charges proved. After considering the inquiry report and the applicant’s representation, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on 29.12.1995. The appeal filed by the applicant was rejected. His review petition and memorial were also rejected. On the applicant’s challenge, this Tribunal earlier set aside only the appellate and revisional orders and directed the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal. The writ petition filed by the