1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6284 OF 2004 Suhas Jagannath Bhagat. ...Petitioner. vs. 1.Union of India & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.C.G.Gavnekar, for Petitioner. Mr.Vinod Joshi with Kiran Kandpile, for Respondents 1 & 2. Ms.Lata Patne, for Respondent no.3. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED: 11th June, 2008. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 13.6.2003 in O.A.no.434 of 2001. By that order the Central Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the original application filed by the 2 petitioner. The petitioner had filed the original application challenging the order dated 16.5.2000 passed by the disciplinary authority, removing him from the service. He also challenges the order of the appellate authority confirming that order of removal from service. The petitioner was working on the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent, Neral Post office. A chargesheet was served on the petitioner leveling two charges viz. one is regarding unauthorised absence from 4.10.1997 and the second charge is for non delivery of number of letters to the persons who are entitled to received them. Both the charges were held to be proved against him in the departmental inquiry and therefore, the punishment of removal was imposed. In the appeal, the appellate authority has confirmed the order. Both these orders were challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The central Administrative Tribunal held that there is evidence on record in support of the charges, and therefore, in its limited jurisdiction the Tribunal will not be justified in interfering with the finding recorded by the Inquiry officer, and therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The 3 learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in relation to the charge against the petitioner that he did not deliver about 45 letters which belonged to his beat for a unduly long time and they were alleged to have been dumped on the mazenine floor in the Nerul post office, there is no evidence on record that those letters actually delivered to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, his case is of no evidence, and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in declining to interfere with the order. In order to appreciate the submission made by the learned Counsel with his help we have gone through the record. We find that though it is true that the registers which could have clearly shown that the letters which were subject matter of charge no.2 were actually handed over to the petitioner for delivery, were not available on record, the material on record shows that there is evidence to show that the letters were actually delivered to the petitioner and he did not deliver them further. We find from the record that several citizens came forward to depose against the petitioner and they have stated that it was their experience that the petitioner was 4 never delivering the letters. The petitioner is not alleging any malice against the post master and therefore in normal course of business in our opinion, the post mater would be delivering the letters to the petitioner as the post master has no interest in retaining the letter with himself. In our opinion, thus considering the totality of the circumstances and the material available on record, it cannot be assumed that the letters were not actually delivered to the petitioner for further delivery. Looking to the material available on record, in our opinion, the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner that this is a case of no evidence does not appear to be correct. When there is material available on record, the writ Court cannot go into the question whether that material is sufficient or not to come to that conclusion. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, this is not the case where the writ court should interfere with the punishment imposed after holding the departmental inquiry. In the result therefore, the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. 5 (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y.GANOO,J.) ---