HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No. 22955 OF 2000 Tuesday, the Sixth Day of July, Two Thousand and Ten Between T. Karunamurthy Petitioner AND The Director General of Posts, Daktar Bhavan, Parliament Street, New Delhi and others Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Assailing the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, dated 24.7.2000 dismissing O.A. No. 493 of 1999 filed by the petitioner herein assailing the Memo dated 25.9.1990 issued by the fourth respondent removing him from service, as confirmed by the third respondent by order dated 10.7.1991 and further confirmed by the second respondent – the Reviewing Authority by order dated 5.1.1999, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner was appointed as Extra-Departmental Sub-Post Master, Chittoor Sugar Factory at Chittoor on 27.11.1975. By order dated 16.5.1990, he was put off duty by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Chittoor, North Sub-Division, pending enquiry. Subsequently, the fourth respondent issued a charge sheet. While so, he was called to the office of the fourth respondent on 6.9.1990 and on being lured of lenient view, he gave representation admitting the guilt. Thereafter, the order dated 25.9.1990 came to be passed removing him from service, which was confirmed by the respondent No.3. The revision preferred therefrom was also dismissed by the second respondent, which was assailed by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, which dismissed the same by the orders impugned in this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner herein that he was called to the office of the respondent No.4 and was overwhelmed to sing the representation to the charge Memo with incriminatory statements on the promise of lenient treatment and he being an Extra-Departmental staff, could not prepare his defence to the charge. The petitioner is charged for having received different amounts from the customers for deposit under different categories of accounts, but did not credited the same to the account of the Department, having entered into the respective passbooks. As can be seen from the reply submitted by the respondent, they have denied the allegation that the petitioner was lured of lenient view, if he admits the charges. It is further stated in the reply that the petitioner has given two typed letters in English in the office of the fourth respondent on 5.9.1990 admitting the charges leveled against him and pleading that no enquiry need be conducted into the charges. Be it noted that the case of the petitioner is that he was called to the office of the fourth respondent on 6.5.1990. Therefore, consequent upon the letters dated 5.9.1990, no enquiry was conducted in view of the admission of the petitioner, as envisaged in first respondent’s Instruction No.9 under Rule 8 of P & T EDAs C & S Rules, 1964. As observed by the Tribunal, when the Discipline and Appeal Rules provide for dispensing with the enquiry in the event of the delinquent admitting the charges, the petitioner is estopped from contending that no enquiry was conducted into the charges, having admitted the guilt. The Reviewing Authority, adverting to the quantum of punishment has rightly observed thus: “…I am satisfied that the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the appellate authority for proved misconduct impinging on the integrity of the petitioner by his own admission and material available before me, is not harsh…” Apart from the same, as observed by the Tribunal, at no point of time the applicant has retracted his confessional statements or did he make any specific allegation against any particular officer of the respondents Department that his confessional statement was recorded under duress, coercion or undue influence. Having given our anxious consideration, we do not find any justification in interfering with the order impugned. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________ Justice P.S.Narayana July 06, 2010 MAS.