IGH COURT OF CHHATTlsGALH AT BILASPUR ' ‘ 1V - g: H‘on'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon’ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar‘,‘ JJ. a W.P.(S) No.5422l2r01 0 RR. Khare, son of Shri 'Shivlal Khar, aged about 58 years, resident 'of .Kusumbasa, ~Near Dalli Rajhara, District Durg Chhattisgarh) R'ESPOENT Union of India, through the Petitioner Secreiary, Ministry of ‘ Communications Government of India Department of Posts Dak Bhawan Parliament Street New Delhi - The Senior Superintendent of Post Offce Durg DiViSion CiVic Center Sector-6 Bhilai South 'hhattisgarh Division, Durg (Chhattis‘garh) ‘ Director,” Postal Services Chhattisgarh Range, Raipur Office of the Head Post Master aIViya Road Raipur (CG) 92 001 entrai Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur Bench CaNas Building, 3 CiVil Lines Jabalpur (Madhya 5 Pradesh) i Present Shri H B Agrawal Sr Advocate With Smt Meera Jaiswal counsel for the ' petitioner i Smt FouZia Miiza Standing counsel for Union of India ‘y ORALORDER (06012011) i This W'it petition is directed against order dated 26‘“ May, 2010 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur Bench Circuit Sitting Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal”) in Original Application No 312/2009 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the i H Q ( NDs C M 4 C i ' a .applrcatlon and upheld the order of the Appellate Authorrty confirmlng the order of the DIsCIplmary Authority Imposing \ punishment of removal from serwce Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was charge sheeted In departmental proceedings 0n conclusmn of departmental Ewas remttted for takrng action by the Discrpllnary authority as per the ‘prowsmns of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 from the stage of receipt of _ enquiry offcers report The wrlt petition fled by the petitioner against \ the above order was further dlsrmssed by the Hugh Court on ~ ’ 24 06 2003 for want of prosecutron and the subsequent wnt petition before the Hlgh Court of Chhattlsgarh was agaln dismissed on 11 O2 2006 Contempt petmon was also fled by the applicant and the same was disposed of on 1703 2008 The petitioner was placed under deemed suspension on 03 05 2007 and subsrstence allowance was disbursed and thereafter fresh order of ‘Removal from Servtce was passed on 22 08 2008 after glvmg opportunrty to the applicant to represent agalnst the enqulry report Hrs appeal was agarn rejected on 29 01 2009 thereafter he approached the Tnbunal and hts Ongmal Application has been dismissed by the Tribunal by the? l proceedings the petrtroner was re oved from servrce vrde order _ dated 23 11 1987 and hrs appeal was further drsmlssed by the " Appellate Authonty vrde order dated 18041990 However hrs I Orrgrnal Applrcatron No 127/1992 was allowed by the Tribunal vrde order dated 23 06 1999 The petrtroner was reinstated and the matter A impugned order iLearned counsel for the petitione submits that quantum of punishment of removal from service Is excesswe and taking Into conSIderatIon the past conduct of the petmoner and also constdenng that the petitioner has refunded the defalcated amount the puntshment of removal from sen/Ice Is too harsh and the same may be reduced to the punishment to tha of compulsory retlrement’ ' Reliance Is placed on the decrsmns m the matters of Mangla Gm Vs ‘ Regional Administrative Committee Varanasi and another and Ganesh Santa Ram Slrur Vs State Bank of India and Anotherz f 0n the other hand learned counsel for the respondents relying upon the decrsuon of Supreme Court In the matters of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Another Vs Munna Lal Jam argued that Interference In the punishment imposed by the: when It Is so disproportionate as to shock the Judicial conscience We have heard learned counsel for the partres From perusal of the documents available on record It appears that the petrtroner was Sub-Post Master m the post of ce Dondllohara between 28 05 1983 and 26 04 1984 Dunng hrs mcumbency as Sub ‘ . ,z Post Master he had retarned heavy cash showrng continuously , I fctltrous trabrlmes On physrcal verlfcatron on 22 061984 the lrabmtres shown by SPM srnce long were found fctrtrous and there was a net shortage of Rs 14 043/- The Tribunal consrdenng that rt ts a case of defalcatlon of publro money entrusted to Government Post (1 998)1 1 SCC 694 (2005) 1SCC 13 10 SCC 84 2 (2005) ‘ Drsclplrnary Authority or the Appellate Authorrty rs only called for 1 ‘ ‘ W ‘ ! V Oft'lcei upheld the order of rémoval from service by rejecting the . , 2r contention of the petitioner that since he hes refunded the defaicated arnoont, the punishment should be reduced from ‘removal from service’ to ‘compuisory retirement‘. 6. In the matter of Ganesh Santa Ram Slirur‘ (supra) the Hon‘ble Supreme Court agreeing with the views taken in the matter of Regiionai Manager, U.P. SRTC Vs. Hoti Lal‘ dismissed the appeal. However, taking into consider the peculiar facts and circumstances of i; i 3 i r , r the'case, the appellant was held entitled to full pension and gratuity irrespective of his total period of service. . I 7. ln the instant case, Disciplinary Autttority after affording an‘ oppofrtunity to the petitioner and considering that the petitioner as Sub: Post; Master defalcated public money entrusted to Government Post t omce, imposed punishment of removal fFom service; The order of removal from service has been subsequently confirmed by Appellate Authority as well as by the Tribunal. The Tribunal further rejected the i stand taken by the applicant that he has refunded the defalcated amount and therefore, he should be relieved from the punishment of r removail from the service imposed on the departmental proceedings al and lesser punishment of compulsory retirementéshould be imposed and held as under: 6 The only'point raised by the learned counsel for the applicant ' is that the quantum of punishment being z I excessive, this Tribunal need reduce the punishment'to that of ‘compulsory retirement'. He relied on certain views expressed by the Apex Court to buttress. his point. We have found that it is a case of defalcation of public money entrusted of Government Post Office. The stand 4 (2003) 3 ecc éo5 ;,r ' t taking defaicated , by the lamoun, applicant shouid is that he, be having , relieved ‘ refundedthe -of ,ithe ' _ ‘ L a? 3 pdnishment imposed in the departmentai iwas proceedings. bound to Since refund he the defaicaied same and ‘th‘e by amount, doing so he the applicant has shown no mercy to anybody. Refund of the defalcated amount back to service just cannot‘repose or to impose confidence a lesser punishment. to restore Loss him of confidence has resulted in passing of order of frejmoval Appellate from Authority, service. cannot This interfere Tribunal. wit the not quantum being the o punishment punishment imposed imposed on by him the cannot department b‘e allowed and to th be relaxed reward with even pensionary upto ‘compulsory benetits’ retir’ to ment‘ a man and who _‘to continuously defalcated Government money.” l l of the fofrums below, we are of On close examination of the orders he impugned nce. Accordingly, the petition being without the opinion that there is no illegality or infirrmitysin t order warranting interfere any substance is hereby dismissed / Dhirggdm Sdl- Mishra ‘, / Judge r rrrir‘é/ ‘ 5.”. 7 , RN. Chandra ‘ @ f e . i _ _; g