,.L H!GH COURT OF JUDiCATURE CHHATTiSGARH: BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH 0> i'BLE SHRI 'BLE SHRi i,J. Wnt Petifion No.4526 of 2006 Bhuneswar Parsad Dubey son of Late Shrinivas Dubey, aged about 52 years, Resident of Near C.S.E.B. Office, Raipur road, Tifra, Bilaspur (c.G.) 1. Union of india Through: The Secretary, Department of posts, 'Dak Bhawan, Parliament Street, NEW DELHI 2. The Member (P) Postal Services Board, Govt. of India, DepSS. of Posts Ministry of Communication, Sanchar Bhawan, NEW DELHI 3. Director, Postai Services, office of Chief PM.G. Raipur, C.G. 4. The Superintendent of Post Officere, Bilaspur Division, BILASPUR (C.G.) Present: Shri R.K. Jaiswal, learned eounsei for th®petitioner. Shri Bhishma Kinger, learned Standing Counsei for the respondenis. iffi" {Passed on 25m August, The following oral order of the Court was passed by The petitioner - delinquent feeiing aggrieved by the order of the Centrai Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, Bench at Bilaspur (for short "the Tribunal") dated 09th September 2004, passed in O.A. No. 118 of 2002, has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India. ^l^^^s'':"' ~. ^& ' ^ ^ :^S i: » -^- -2- (2) The Disciplinary Authority in contempiation of departmental proceedings againstthe petitioner placed him under suspension on 09-04-1986. Thereaftenvards, the Disciplinary Authority hairing conducted a regular departmental enquiry found him guiity of misconduct aileged against hinn, and by its ordsr dated 06-04-1990 dismissed the petitioner from services as a discipiinary measure. Feeling aggrieved by ths oi'der of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred appea!. The Appeliate Authority while confirming the finding on misconduct fhought it appropriate to reciuce the penaity imposed by the Discipiinary AutSiority. Accordingly, the Appeilate Authority modlfied the penaity of dismissa! to that of deduction of pay to the minimum of the scale of pay of Rs.975-25-1150-FR-30-16®3for a period of 2 years from the date of reinstatement into service. It further directed that during the period of reduction, the petitioner - deiinquent is not entitled to incremente and that reduction in pay would have the effect of postponing his future increments.At that stage, the petitioner - delinquent instituted O.A. No. 783 of 1993 before the Tribunai contending that since She punishment of dismissa! awarded by the Disciplinary Authorify was modified by the Appellate Authority to that of reduction in pay for a period of 2 years, the period from the date of his suspension to the date of reinstatement should be reguiarized by passina appropriate order and the department had failed to do so. in the context of ttieabove submission of the petitioner delinquent, the Tribunal by its order dated 06-08-1998 disposed of O.A. No. 783 of 1993 in the foflowing terms: "2 The submission of the appiicant is that the initial punishment of dismissai from service was modified by Uie appeiiate authority to that of reduction in pay for a period of two years. The applicant was therefore reinstated in service in the year 1995. The only grievance of the appilcant L ^- / ') is that the period from the date of his suspension to the date of reinstatement is to be regularized by passing of a proper order. We accordingly aiiow this application with a direction to the respondents to pass an order in this regard within two months frorn today." (3) In pursuance of the above direction of the Tribunal, the respondents considered She ciaim of the petitioner - deiinquent and passed order on 22-12-1998 whereby and whereunder it vvas directed that the period from 09-04-1986 to 16-02-1995 shouidbe regarded as on duty only for the purpose of pension and not for any other purpose; that pay and allowances for the period from 09-04-1986 to 05-04-1990 are restricted to the subsistence ailowance and other allowances already paid and that the pay and aiiowances for the period from 06-04-1990 to 16-02- 1995 are restricted to tlie subsistence ailowance and other aliowances Shat the petitioner - deiinquent had drawn before his dismissal. it appears that the aforesaid direction was also confirmsd by the Appeilate Authority vide order dated 05-02-2001 . Feeiing aggrieved by the above directions, the petitioner - deiinquent again instituted O.A. No. 118 of 2002 before the Tribunal. The Tribunai by its order dated 09-09-2004 which is impugned in this writ petition has dismissed the said O.A. Hence, the petitioner - delinquent has filed this writ petition. (4) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. St was contended that since the Appeilate Authority has reduced the penaity imposed by the Discipiinary Authority, the petitioner - delinquent is entitied to ciaim pay and allowances for the period from 09-04-1986 to 16-02-1995. We do not Shink that there is any merit in the contention. It is not a case where the Appeliate Authority exonerated the petitioner - delinquent from the charge of misconduct ieveiled against the petitjoner. On the other hand, •- '~1. v^ &S& ^- the order of the Disciplinary Authority stands confirmed by the Appeiiate Authority. However, the Appeiiate Authority having regard to the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in its discretion thought it appropriate to reduce the quantum of penaity. That circumstance itself would not vest any enforceable right in the petitioner to contend that he should be paid pay and allowances for the period frorn 09-04-1986 the date on which he was piaced under suspension in contemplation of the departmentai enquiry to 16-02-1895 the date on which he was reinstated into service in pursuance of the order made by the Appeliate Authority. The discretion exercised by the respondents and the aforementioned directions issued by the respondents couid not be faulted with, because, undeniabiy the Disci'piinary Authority has the power to decide how the suspension period shouid be treated in the case of a delinquent who is found to be guilty of misconduct ieveled against him. Above all, we are of the considered opinion that having regard to the nature of misconduct a!!eged and proved against the petitioner - delinquent, the impugned directions should be regarded as just and reasonabte. There is no warrant for this Court to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Oiiip Raosaheb Desiimukh Judae '"--r'