Bombay High Court
Shri.Sk Aziz vs Union Of India on 14 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
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
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
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
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
