Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4616

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Om Prakash VII, J, Mohan Pyare, A
Ashok Kumar Jaiswar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.939 of 2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri M.K. Upadhyay
For the Respondents: Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey

Tribunals should not interfere in disciplinary proceedings absent procedural irregularity, natural justice violation, or grossly disproportionate penalty; limited review ensures fair process and evidentiary support, not re-appreciation of evidence.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - G.D.S. (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 - Rule 21 - G.D.S. Rules (Seventh Edition) - Rules 124

(C), 133(1)(2), 134(1) - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rules 14(2), 15 - Disciplinary proceedings against Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master - Charges of receiving public money for deposit in savings accounts/opening accounts but failing to account for it timely, using for personal purposes - Inquiry held, charges proved, dismissal from service - Challenge on grounds of non-supply of all documents, same officer as inquiry and disciplinary authority, delay in punishment order, disproportionate penalty, appeal time-barred - Tribunal not to act as appellate authority or re-appraise evidence unless procedural irregularity, violation of natural justice or grossly disproportionate penalty - Supply of only material/relevant documents required; non-supply of unavailable documents not vitiating if no prejudice and charges proved by other evidence including own admissions - Preliminary inquiry officer not debarred from acting as disciplinary authority - No mandatory 3-month limit for punishment order - Principles of natural justice not violated where findings based on supplied documents, witness statements and admissions - Penalty of dismissal commensurate with lack of integrity and devotion to duty despite eventual restitution. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 10)

(B) Judicial review in disciplinary matters - Limited scope - Tribunal cannot substitute its view for disciplinary authority's findings if supported by some evidence, fair process followed and no perversity - Appeal/revision authorities' decisions upheld if reasoned. (Paras 8, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, working as Branch Post Master, charged with receiving cash from public for savings deposits/opening accounts between 2005-2007 but not accounting immediately, using for self including wife's treatment, depositing later upon inquiries. Inquiry proved charges, led to dismissal upheld in appeal (time-barred) and revision.

Findings of Court:
No procedural irregularities or natural justice violations vitiating proceedings; charges proved by evidence including admissions; dismissal appropriate for grave misconduct showing lack of integrity.

Issues: Whether non-supply of some documents, same officer's dual role, delay in order, time-bar on appeal and penalty proportionality vitiated dismissal; scope of tribunal interference in disciplinary findings.

Ratio Decidendi: Tribunals interfere in disciplinary proceedings only for significant procedural errors, natural justice violations or shockingly disproportionate penalties; limited to ensuring fair process and some evidence support, not re-evaluation; material documents suffice, no prejudice from unavailable ones if findings otherwise sustainable.

Result: Original Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of charges and disciplinary proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. applicant's procedural and substantive defenses. (Para 4)
3. respondents' justification of charges and proceedings. (Para 5)
4. charges proved; lack of integrity established. (Para 6 , 7)
5. limited judicial review; no natural justice violation. (Para 8 , 9)
6. no interference; oa dismissed. (Para 10 , 11)

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)

1.Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

“(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders of dismissal from service'dated 05.06.2015 (Annexure No. A-1) appellate order' dated 29.09.2016 (Annexure No. A-2) and Revisional order dated 16.07.2018 (Annexure No. A-3) respectively.

(ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to pass order to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits including back wages with arrears etc.

(iii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to award cost of the Original Application in favour of the applicant.”

2. Brief facts of this case are that the applicant was working as G.D.S. Branch Post master Deochandpur, Sub-Office Bara Goan, Varanasi. He was served a Memo No. F-4/1/2007-2008 dated 11.06.2012 issued by Superintendent of Post offices, West Division, Varanasi. He was put off duty on 12.06.2012 by the Superintendent of Post Offices, West Division, Varanasi with immediate effect. The aforesaid memo of charge sheet dated 11.06.2012 was corrected vide Memo No. F-4/1/2007-2008 dated 30.09.2013. The charges leveled against the applicant are as under:

(a) While working as GDS BPM Deochandpur in between 27.08.2001 to 19.04.2007, the applicant received Rs. 14000/- on 10.05.2005 from Subhash Chandra S/o Ram Manohar Ram to deposit the same in his Saving Bank Account No. 406561 but he failed to deposit the same in his account. When he came to know, he deposited the same in Head Post office cantt. Varanasi vide receipt No. 136156 in U.C.R.

(b) While working as GDS BPM Deochandpur the applicant received Rs. 5000/- on 19.04.2007 from Gajraj Kumar Prajapati in order to open a SB A/C in his name but he failed to deposit. Later on when he came to know, he deposited the same on 16.10.2007 in Head Post Office Varanasi Cantt vide Receipt No. B-1333 dated 16.10.2007.

(c) While working as GDS BPM Deochandpur, S.O. Bara Goan, the applicant received Rs. 1000/- on 02.06.2006 and Rs. 7000/- on 05.06.2006 from Smt. Heerawati Devi W/o Jag Mohan Ram R/o Village and Post Deochandpur in order to deposit the same in her Saving Bank Account No. 405376. The said amounts were not deposited in the said SB/AC and used it for self use. Thus the applicant violated Rules 124(C) 133 (1) (2) and 134 (1) of Seventh Edition of G.D.S. and he also violated Rule - 21 of G.D.S. (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011.

3. The applicant denied the charges leveled against him vide his representation dated 18.06.2012. Then the Disciplinary Authority i.e. SPOs West Division, Varanasi appointed an Inquiry Officer namely Sri H.G. Verma ASP (T) west Division, Varanasi vide letter dated 11.07.2012 to conduct enquiry into the charges leveled against him. Later on Sri H.G. Verma was transferred, hence Sri R.K. Srivastava, ASPO (T) West Division, Varanasi was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The applicant engaged his Defence Assistant. The inquiry officer submitted the Inquiry report on 02.12.2014 to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary authority sent Inquiry report to the charged official vide letter F-4/1/2007-2008 dated 05.12.2014. In the aforesaid Inquiry Report, all the charges were found proved by the Inquiry Officer. The applicant submitted his representation on 15.12.2014 by hand in the office of Superintendent of Post Offices, West Division Varanasi against the inquiry report dated 02.12.2014 which was sent alongwith letter dated 05.12.2014. During the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4616

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALOm Prakash VII, J, Mohan Pyare, AAshok Kumar Jaiswar – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOriginal Application No.939 of 2018

Tribunals should not interfere in disciplinary proceedings absent procedural irregularity, natural justice violation, or grossly disproportionate penalty; limited review ensures fair process and evidentiary support, not re-appreciation of evidence.

Cases Referred (5)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Om Prakash VII, J, Mohan Pyare, A
Ashok Kumar Jaiswar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.939 of 2018