[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

The Union Of India vs The Registrar on 6 March, 2026

Author: C.V. Karthikeyan

Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan

    2026:MHC:943
                                                                                            WP No. 26416 of 2023


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS


                                  Reserved on : 05.02.2026                   Pronounced on : 06.03.2026


                                                              CORAM
                                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
                                                                 AND
                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
                                                    WP No. 26416 of 2023
                                                                  and
                                                   WMP No.25830 of 2023

                1. The Union of India
                   Rep by the Directorate of Postal Service,
                   O/o The Postmaster General,
                   Southern Region(tn), Madurai - 625 002.

                2. Superintendent of Post Office,
                   Ramanathapuram Division,
                   Ramanathapuram - 623 501.

                                                                                               ..Petitioner(s)
                                                                   Vs.
                1. The Registrar
                   Central Administration Tribunal, Chennai
                   Bench, Chennai.

                2. A.Arun,
                   S/o. M.Anbu,
                   Akkalmadam Village,
                   Rameshwaram Taluk,
                   Ramanthapuram District - 623 521.

                                                                                             ..Respondent(s)



                                                                                                    __________
                                                                                                     Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                   ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
                                                                                             WP No. 26416 of 2023


                                  This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                India, in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for records pertaining to the
                order dated 24.03.2023 in O.A.1583 of 2015 on the file of the Central
                Administrative Tribunal Chennai Bench and to quash the same
                .
                              For Petitioner(s):               M/s.K.Srinivasa Murthy, SPCGC

                              For Respondent(s):               Mr.R.Malaichamy for R2
                                                               R1 - Tribunal.


                                                               ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

The respondents in O.A.No.1583 of 2015 on the file of the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, aggrieved by the order dated

24.03.2023 have filed the present writ petition.

2.The 2nd respondent herein, A.Arun, was working as Postal Assistant at

Ramanathapuram Head Office, when he was issued with a charge memo dated

28.09.2012. It was alleged that he had suppressed deposits in two Savings Bank

account when he was working between 05.02.2010 and 07.03.2011 as Postal

Assistant at Sub-Post, Uthirakosamangai, to a total amount of Rs.2,600/-. He

had then voluntarily credited a sum of Rs.2,600/- on 08.10.2011 towards the

said amount. In this connection, an enquiry was conducted. During the enquiry,

one of the witnesses had denied the contents in a statement, in which he had

signed as a witness. However, the Enquiry Officer had held that the charges __________ Page2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )

were proved. It was also stated that the 2 nd petitioner herein, Superintendent of

Post Office, Ramanathapuram Division had directed the 2 nd respondent to give a

reply to the enquiry report by letter dated 07.01.2015. The 2 nd respondent

denied the charges. However, he was removed from the service by the 2 nd

petitioner by order dated 25.02.2015. The 2nd respondent filed an appeal before

the 1st petitioner herein who rejected the appeal by order dated 27.07.2015.

Challenging these orders, the 2nd respondent had filed the Original Application

before the Tribunal.

3.In its order, the Tribunal held that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated

since the enquiry was conducted without examining the defacto complainant

and without the defacto complainant being subjected to cross examination. It

was further held that the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, were not

tenable. In view of specific findings of violation of principles of natural justice,

the Tribunal had remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority and had

further directed to consider the matter sympathetically for imposition of any

lesser punishment than the dismissal or removal from service which would rob

the employee all of his earned benefits and it was further directed that the

respondent authorities should pass appropriate orders within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

__________ Page3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )

4.The present writ petition has been filed challenging the aforementioned

observation of the Tribunal encroaching into the discretion of the Appellate

Authority on the nature of punishment that should be imposed on the 2 nd

respondent.

5.Heard arguments advanced by Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior

Panel Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Malaichamy, learned counsel for the

2nd respondents.

6.Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the

petitioners, pointing out the facts of the case, stated that the Tribunal had given

reasons for remitting the matter back for fresh enquiry, but at the same time had

given a direction about the nature of punishment which should be imposed and

argued that since that direction encroached on the discretion of the Appellate

Authority, should be set aside by this Court.

7.Mr.R.Malaichamy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, however,

contended that the entire disciplinary proceeding stood vitiated for the

systematic violation of principles of natural justice and argued that the

observations of the Tribunal were not mandatory in nature and stated that the

writ petition should be dismissed and there should be no interference with the

said observations.

__________ Page4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )

8.We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused the

material records.

9.The fact that the 2 nd respondent was working as Postal Assistant in

Ramanathapuram Head Office and was deputed to Uthirakosamangai, Sub-Post

Office in the year 2012 is not disputed. During that period, he was visited with a

charge memo alleging that he had suppressed deposits in two Savings Bank

account amounting to Rs.2,600/- and that he had voluntarily deposited the said

amount on a later date. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal would reveal that,

during enquiry, principles of natural justice had been vitiated. It had been

observed that though one Shanmugaraju stated that he did not know the contents

of the statement in which he was asked to sign as a witness, the said statement

was taken note of by the Enquiry Officer. Further, yet another statement

recorded from M.Murugeswari was signed by P.Muniyandi which would

indicate that M.Murugeswari was not the author of the said statement. It was

further observed that the defacto complainant was not examined and also was

not subjected to cross examination.

10.We have perused the records and we find that these observations of

the Tribunal are supported by the records. We therefore hold that the Tribunal

was a right in holding that the principles of natural justice were violated during

the course of enquiry and that therefore, the matter had to be remanded back for

fresh enquiry. We however hold that the further observations of the Tribunal __________ Page5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )

regarding the nature of punishment imposed will necessarily have to be set

aside, as the Tribunal has no authority to encroach upon the discretion of the

Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority with respect to the nature of

punishment to be imposed if the charges are held proved.

11.In view of above observations, we would partly allow the writ petition

by maintaining the directions to remit the matter back for fresh enquiry, but by

setting aside the observation of the Tribunal regarding the nature of punishment

to be imposed on the 2nd respondent.

12.In the result, the writ petition stands partly allowed with the above

observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.

(C.V.K.,J.) (K.B.,J.) 06-03-2026 smv Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No