Bombay High Court
Vitthal S/O Ganuji Motghare vs The Union Of India Thr. Its Secty., ... on 13 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 J-WP-4003-11.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4003 OF 2011
Shri Vitthal s/o Ganuji Motghare,
Aged about : 64 years,
Occupation : Ex-Sub Post Master,
Sadak Arjuni Sub Post Office,
Now R/o Rajgopalachari Ward,
Bhandara, Tah. & Dist. Bhandara. ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan,
Ministry of Communications,
Parliament Street,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Post Master General,
Nagpur Region, Nagpur - 440010.
3. The Director of Postal Services,
Nagpur Region, Office of the
Post Master General,
Nagpur - 440010.
4. The Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices,
Nagpur Mfl Dn. Nagpur - 440002. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D. B. Walthare, Advocate for the petitioner.
Dr. R. S. Sundaram, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED :-
13/06/2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
2 J-WP-4003-11.odt
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of
the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 7 th May, 2010 dismissing the
original application filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner was working as a Post Master with the
respondent when he was dismissed from service on the basis of an
incident of August, 1995. Criminal as well as departmental proceedings
were initiated against the petitioner in view of the charges levelled
against him. Initially, the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court but
after the Appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court, the
trial Court acquitted the petitioner of the charges levelled against him.
The respondents however proceeded with the departmental enquiry
that was initiated against the petitioner and after the charges levelled
against the petitioner were proved, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed
the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenged the order of his
dismissal before the Appellate Authorities. The Appellate Authorities
dismissed the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner. Being
aggrieved by the orders of the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authority,
the petitioner filed the original application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal. Before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
several grounds were raised by the petitioner including the ground in
regard to the fairness of the enquiry. According to the petitioner, the
petitioner was not supplied with the documents, though he had
3 J-WP-4003-11.odt
specifically demanded for the same and though they were relied on by
the respondents for proving the charges against him. Several other
grounds were raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal. According to
the petitioner, there was non-compliance of Sub-Rule (12) of Rule 14 of
the Central Civil Services C.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1965 inasmuch as the
Investigating Officer had examined the defence witnesses before he was
examined. Certain other grounds that pertain to the correctness or
otherwise of the conduct of the enquiry were also raised before the
Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal
however dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner
without dealing with any of the grounds raised by the petitioner. The
petitioner has challenged the order of the Tribunal, in the instant
petition.
Shri Walthare, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that though nearly 26 grounds were raised before the
Tribunal and the Tribunal has recorded each of them in the impugned
order, the Tribunal has not specifically considered and dealt with the
same. It is submitted that only one of the grounds raised by the
petitioner is considered by the Tribunal in para 6.3 of the impugned
order. It is submitted that the Tribunal has failed to perform its duty in
dealing with the submissions raised by the petitioner and has only
observed in para 6.3 of the impugned order that it has endorsed the
4 J-WP-4003-11.odt
findings recorded by the Appellate Authority on the said submission. It
is submitted that the Tribunal is not expected to only say that it has
endorsed the finding of the Appellate Authority without specifically
dealing with any of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. In
the circumstances of the case, the learned counsel seeks a remand of the
matter to the Central Administrative Tribunal for a fresh decision.
Shri Sundaram, the learned counsel for the respondents
has referred to the order of the Appellate Authority and submitted that
the Tribunal has on a reading of the order of the Appellate Authority
rightly held that there was no merit in any of the submissions made on
behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that after going through the
orders of the Appellate Authority, the Tribunal has rightly recorded that
it has endorsed the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority. The
learned counsel sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.
On a reading of the impugned order and the grounds
raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal, which find place in the
impugned order, it appears that the Tribunal has failed to perform its
duty by not dealing with the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner. The petitioner has raised as many as 26 grounds before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal has observed in para 6.3 of the impugned order
that it has endorsed the findings recorded in the appellate order.
5 J-WP-4003-11.odt
Without dealing with the grounds raised by the petitioner before the
Tribunal, the Tribunal has only observed that it has endorsed the
findings recorded by the Appellate Authority. When specific grounds are
raised by a party before a Court or a Tribunal, the Court or the Tribunal
is duty bound to deal with the grounds raised by the party before it.
Though the grounds are referred to in the impugned order, no findings
are recorded in respect of any of the grounds raised by the petitioner,
except one. Out of 26 grounds, it may be possible that some of the
grounds are extremely frivolous and they do not require specific
consideration but the Tribunal ought to have at least rendered a finding
with regard to the grounds pertaining to the absence of grant of fair
opportunity to the petitioner and the violation of the provisions of the
Rules while conducting the enquiry. By giving example of only one of
the grounds raised before the Tribunal, in para 6.3 of the impugned
order, the Tribunal has held that there is no merit in the grounds raised
by the petitioner, after the order of the Appellate Authority. After the
acquittal of the petitioner by the Criminal Court, the petitioner had
amended the original application and had raised additional grounds on
the basis of his acquittal in the criminal proceedings but those grounds
are also not dealt with by the Tribunal. The impugned order is clearly
illegal and the same cannot be sustained.
6 J-WP-4003-11.odt
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The
matter is remanded to the Central Administrative Tribunal for a fresh
decision on the original application filed by the petitioner on merits.
The parties undertake to appear before the Tribunal on 17 th July, 2017
so that notice to the parties is dispensed with. Since the matter is an old
one, the Tribunal is requested to decide the original application of the
petitioner, within six months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
