Union Of India vs Vinod Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Ram ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7810 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12542/2022

1.      Union Of India, Through Its Secretary To The Government
        Of     India,       Department             Of      Posts,         Ministry    Of
        Communications             And      Information             Technology,      Dak
        Bhawan, New Delhi 110001.
2.      Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan, Circle, Jaipur-
        302007.
3.      Director Postal Services, Jaipur-302007.
4.      Senior Superintendent Of Post Offices, Jaipur City Postal
        Division, Jaipur-302006.
                                                                          ----Petitioners
                                       Versus
Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ram Gopal Sharma, Aged About
44 Years, Resident Of Village Sheosinghpura, Post Dhankiya, Via
Jhotwara, Jaipur. Last Employed As Gramin Dak Sevak (Extra
Departmental), Branch Post Master Dhankiya, (Jhotawara Sub
Post Office), Jaipur City Postal Division, Jaipur (Removed From
Services).
                                                                         ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Order

14/12/2022

1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the

judgment and order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.

2. The Central Administrative Tribunal by the aforesaid

judgment and order has held that the punishment of removal

imposed upon the delinquent employee is too harsh looking to the

(2 of 2) [CW-12542/2022]

nature of the job and the charge levelled against him and the

circumstances in which the offence was committed.

3. The Tribunal thus, after setting aside the order of removal

has directed the disciplinary authority to accord some other lesser

punishment.

4. The delinquent employee was working as a Branch Post

Master and had been charged for the offence of misappropriation

of a petty amount of money-order which he got delivered upon the

mother-in-law of the addressee, rather than upon the person

concerned.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we agree

with the opinion of the Tribunal that the punishment imposed is

disproportionate to the gravity of the charge and as such requires

no interference.

6. The appeal lacks merits and is dismissed.

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ

NAVAL KISHOR/RAJAT/5

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)