HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE JUSTI CE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TI WARI AND

HON’BLE JUSTI CE SRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY

Writ Petition (S/B) No. 334 of 2013

Dashrath Singh Rana --Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others --Respondents

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Advocates:-

Mr. Alok Dalakoti, Advocate for the petitioner through video conferencing.

Mr. Virendra Kumar Kaparuwan, Advocate for the Union of India

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)

1. Petitioner has challenged judgment dated 22.05.2013, rendered by Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1889 of 2010 (U). By the said judgment, original application filed by petitioner challenging order passed by disciplinary authority as

affirmed by appellate authority, was dismissed.

2. It is not in dispute that petitioner was posted as Officiating Deputy Postmaster in General Post Office, Haldwani (Nainital) from 01.01.2002 to 31.08.2002. During said period, a huge amount of money was siphoned off from the R.D. accounts of depositors. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and enquiry was held. Based on the findings returned by Enquiry Officer, petitioner was dismissed from service by the Director of Postal Services, vide order dated

19.07.2007.

3. Petitioner preferred departmental appeal challenging the dismissal order. His appeal was partly

allowed and the punishment of dismissal was modified to that of reduction in rank and he was directed to be reinstated vide order dated 27.03.2008, passed by Chief Postmaster General, Uttarakhand Circle, Dehradun.

4. Petitioner thereafter approached Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, challenging order passed by disciplinary authority and also the appellate authority. Learned Tribunal dismissed his Original Application vide judgment dated 14.05.2013. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court, challenging judgment rendered by learned Tribunal. He has also challenged the orders passed by disciplinary authority and the appellate authority.

5. Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents is right in submitting that since the order passed by appellate authority has merged in the judgment rendered by learned Tribunal, therefore, it cannot be independently challenged in this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the course of enquiry. He submits that at the stage of inspection of documents, he was given documents which were not legible; witnesses did not directly support the charge; none of the depositors made any complaint regarding wrong payment; no independent witnesses was produced before enquiry officer; two departmental witnesses stated before the enquiry officer that there is no direct evidence against the applicant and regarding charge no. 3, it was stated that fraud was committed in 2001 when applicant was not posted at Haldwani Post Office; the orders passed by disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are non-speaking and were passed without considering full facts and the charge-sheet was vague.

7. We have gone through the impugned judgment. Learned Tribunal has held that although the primary responsibility for misappropriation of money was of Mr. M.C. Suyal, however, petitioner, who was working in supervisory capacity, failed to exercise adequate supervision and control over Mr. M.C. Suyal, as per the provision contained in Post Office Manual.

8. It further reveals that Enquiry Officer held charge number 1 and 5 as not proved, but charge number 2, 3 & 4 were found to be proved. Learned Tribunal has held that petitioner’s allegation that certain documents were not legible relates to preliminary enquiry and petitioner has not alleged that he was not allowed full access to all documents as mentioned in the charge-sheet. If the documents w