1 wp4126.05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4126 OF 2005
Shri S.K. Aziz,
aged about 57 years,
occupation : Sub-Post Master,
K.C. Park, Post Office, Nagpur,
r/o 44, Sainagar, near Sona Gold
Finger Factory, Shantinagar,
Nagpur - 2. ... Petitioner
ig Original
Applicant
- Versus -
1) Union of India, through
Member (Personnel), Postal
Services Board, New Delhi-110 001.
2) Post Master General,
Nagpur Region, Nagpur-10.
3) Director, Postal Services,
Nagpur Region, Nagpur - 10. ... Respondents
Original
Respondents
-----------------
None for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
----------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 14, 2016 ::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/10/2016 00:30:58 ::: 2 wp4126.05 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. VASANTI A NAIK , J.) :
By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, dated 16/3/2005 dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner was working as a Sub-Post Master at the relevant time in the year 2001 at Nagpur when he was served with a charge-sheet stating therein that he did not close the Post Office properly while leaving the same, leading to the theft to the tune of more than Rs.1,00,000/- in the form of cash, postage stamps, etc. The Disciplinary Authority - Competent Authority by an order dated 2/6/2003 exonerated the petitioner of the charges. The Director of Postal Services, however, suo motu took up the matter in revision under Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the order of the Disciplinary Authority should not be modified and as to why punishment should not be imposed upon the petitioner in view of the loss caused to the Department.
After serving a show cause notice on the petitioner, the Director of Postal Services imposed penalty of censure on the petitioner and also sought to recover a sum of Rs.10,000/- from him in 20 equal instalments. The order of the Director of Postal Services was challenged by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal ::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/10/2016 00:30:58 ::: 3 wp4126.05 by the impugned order dated 16/3/2005 dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner.
We have perused the writ petition and also the impugned order. It appears on a perusal of the writ petition and the impugned order that though the petitioner was exonerated by the Competent Authority by the order dated 2/6/2003, the Director of Postal Services suo motu sought to revise the order of the Competent Authority and served a show cause notice on the petitioner as to why punishment should not be imposed upon him for the loss caused to the Department. After serving the show cause notice on the petitioner, so as to give him an opportunity, the Director of Postal Services, by the order dated 17/2/2004, imposed the penalty of censure and also directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- in 20 equal instalments. The only ground raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the Director of Postal Services could not have revised the order of the Competent Authority as under the provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules of 1965, only the Post Master General was competent to revise the order. The said submission was rightly rejected by the Tribunal on a reading of Rule 29 of the Rules of 1965. The Tribunal rightly relied on Rule 29(1)(v) of the Rules of 1965 to hold that even an appellate Authority was competent to revise the order of the competent Authority within a period of six months from the date of the order of the Competent Authority. The Tribunal recorded a finding that ::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/10/2016 00:30:58 ::: 4 wp4126.05 the Director of Postal Services was the appellate Authority as the Competent Authority that had exonerated the petitioner was the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices. The Tribunal found that the order of the Competent Authority was sought to be revised by the appellate Authority by invoking the provisions of Rule 29(1)(v) of the Rules of 1965 within a period of six months from the date of the order of the Competent Authority. On a reading of the provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules of 1965, the Tribunal rightly held that there was no merit in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the Director of Postal Services could not have revised the order of exoneration and only the Principal Chief Post Master General or the Chief Post Master General was entitled to revise the order. We find that the impugned order is passed on a proper reading of the relevant Rules and on appreciation of the material on record. The revisional Authority has rightly revised the order of the Competent Authority as the charge levelled against the petitioner was not rebutted by the petitioner and it was a case of non rebuttal in respect of the loss caused to the Department. There is no scope for the interference with the order of the Tribunal in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
Since the impugned order is just and proper, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/10/2016 00:30:58 :::