Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to ensuring compliance with natural justice and the existence of some evidence; the court cannot act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the disciplinary authority.

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

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

“(a) The Hon’ble Tribunal may be graciously be pleased to quash the impugned dismissal order from service dated 28.02.2011 as well as order dated 11.02.2013 passed by respondent No.3, 2 respectively.

(b) The Hon’ble Tribunal may be graciously be pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 to reinstate the service of the applicant.

(c) The Hon’ble Tribunal may be graciously be pleased to issue any other writ order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

(d) The Hon’ble Tribunal may be graciously be pleased to award costs to the applicant”.

2. During the pendency of this OA, the original applicant and applicant No. 1/1 (Vinay Kumar) passed away and thereafter his widow and sons of original applicant have been substituted in his place by way of a substitution application.

3. The brief facts of the case are that original applicant, Shri Vijay Shankar, was working as a Postal Assistant at the Head Post Office, Mirzapur. On 05.09.2008, the Post Master of the Head Post Office, Mirzapur (respondent no.4) lodged a First Information Report against the original applicant alleging his involvement in an incident relating to the loss of Rs. 13,80,000/-. The FIR was lodged on the same day at about 8:10 p.m. at Police Station Kotwali Katara, District Mirzapur under Section 409 IPC. According to the applicants, the FIR was false and frivolous. On 06.09.2008, the respondent no.3 constituted a committee of MANISH three postal officers to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the alleged

KUMAR

SRIVASTAVA loss from the Safe Zone Branch, Dankeenganj, SBI, Mirzapur. The committee conducted a preliminary enquiry and recorded statements of the original applicant and other persons. Thereafter, the committee submitted a preliminary enquiry report which, according to the applicants, was contradictory and not based on proper appreciation of facts. During the police investigation, statements of Ghanshyam Yadav, the cashier of the bank and Shri Lallu @ Lal Bihari Sharma, a cycle stand worker, were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which did not conclusively establish the involvement of the original applicant in the alleged incident. On 19.01.2009 on the basis of the FIR, the original applicant was placed under suspension and a charge-sheet dated 19.01.2009 was issued to him by respondent no.3. Subsequently, on 25.02.2009, Shri O.B. Singh, A.S.P. (W), Mirzapur was appointed as the Inquiry Officer and Shri Rajeev Kumar, S.D.I., Chunar, Mirzapur was appointed as the Presenting Officer. Original applicant had submitted his detailed reply and defence to the charge-sheet on 22.02.2010 before the Inquiry Officer. However, without properly appreciating the evidence on record, without considering the contradictions in the statements of witnesses and relying upon a defective enquiry report, respondent no.3 passed an order dated 28.02.2011 dismissing the original applicant from service. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the original applicant preferred a statutory appeal before the Director, Postal Services, Allahabad on 21.03.2012. The appellate authority without adequately considering the facts, evidence and grounds raised by the original applicant, dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the original applicant submitted a petition dated 16.08.2012 before the Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow, challenging the dismissal order. However,