The Union Of India And 4 Others vs N. Vidyasagar
2022 Latest Caselaw 1416 Tel

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
                                  AND
              HON'BLE SMT Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

                  WRIT PETITION No.14448 of 2022

                            Date:23.03.2022

Between:

The Union of India rep., by its Secretary,
Department of Posts-India,
Dal Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi 110 001 & others.
                                              .....Petitioners

     And

N. Vidyasagar, S/o.N.Purushottam,
Postal Assistant (Removed) Mancherial HO,
R/o.H.No.12-26/3, Goutami Nagar Street,
Mancherial 504 209

                                              .....Respondent

The Court made the following:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND HON'BLE SMT Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

WRIT PETITION No.14448 of 2022

ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao)

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :

"...to issue an order or direction or writ specially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to order dated 01.12.2021 in O.A.No.804 of 2015 on the file of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench Hyderabad at Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and pass such other order or orders...."

2. Aggrieved by the order of removal from service dated 07.12.2014,

the respondent filed O.A.No.021/00804 of 2015 before the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short 'the Tribunal').

The Tribunal by the order impugned disposed of the O.A., holding that

the punishment of removal is excessive and remanded the matter to

the Disciplinary Authority to re-consider imposing of appropriate

punishment other than the punishment of compulsory

retirement/removal/dismissal duly taking note of the observations of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.C.Chaturvedi Vs Union of India1 and

Union of India & Others Vs Ex.Constable Ram Karan in Civil Appeal

No.6723 of 2021 vide Judgment dated 11.11.2021.

3. We have heard learned counsel representing learned Assistant

Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners and Sri M. Venkanna

learned counsel for the respondent.

1995 (6) SCC 749

4. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the

respondent, vide charge Memo dated 17.12.2014 levelling three

charges. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the respondent,

departmental enquiry was ordered. The Inquiry Officer held Charges 1

and 3 as proved and 2nd Charge as not proved. On due consideration

of the explanation offered by the respondent, concurring with the

opinion expressed by the Inquiry Officer on Charges 1 and 3,

Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of removal from service

and the appeal filed against the said order was dismissed.

5. The Tribunal opined that in Charge No.1 what was alleged

against the respondent was that he allowed payment of amount to the

depositor by cash, whereas in rural areas, the department permitted

the Sub-Postmaster to pay money in cash. Since departmental

instructions do contemplate payment of money in cash, the allegations

levelled against the respondent cannot be treated as grave warranting

imposing of punishment of removal and therefore sets aside the

punishment.

6. We have gone through the Charges levelled against the

respondent particularly Charges 1 and 3 and the order of Disciplinary

Authority on due consideration of the findings of the Inquiry Officer.

7. Prima-facie, we have noticed that what is alleged in Charge No.1

is not confined only to payment of amount in cash, but there are other

components of the allegations also. Further Charge No.3 was proved,

but the Tribunal has not even looked into what is alleged in Charge

No.3 and whether the finding recorded on Charge No.3 is valid within

the parameters of judicial review.

8. Therefore, the Tribunal grossly erred in setting aside the

punishment and remanding the matter without looking into the entire

issue involved.

9. Having regard to this prima-facie opinion, learned counsel for the

respondent fairly submits that the matter may be remanded to the

Tribunal for consideration of the issue afresh on all aspects.

10. We appreciate the fair submission of learned counsel for the

respondent. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the Writ Petition

is allowed. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh

consideration of O.A., uninfluenced by any of the observations made

herein, after affording due opportunity to both parties. The Tribunal

shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably

within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this

order. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

______________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI,J

23rd March, 2022 Rds