IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA --------- Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18550 of 2010 ---------- In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ------------- 1.The Union Of India through the Secretary- cum- D.G,.Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan,New Delhi 2. The Chief Post Master General,Bihar Circle,Patna 3. The Post-Master General, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur. 4. Director of Postal Services, Northern Region, Office of Post Master General, Northern Region , Muzaffarpur 5. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Saran Postal Division, Chapra...............................................Petitioners Versus Ram Babu Singh, son of Shri Shiv Paras Singh, R/o Village- Jaitipur, Via- Dighwara, District- Saran, at present working on the post of Postal Assistant at Dighwara Sub-post office in Saran Postal ..............................................Respondent -------- For the petitioner :- Mr. Mithilesh Kr. Rai, Sr.C. G.C. Mr. Shiv Kumar,C.G.C. For the Respondent:- None -------- 3 15-10-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of notice nobody has appeared on behalf 2 of sole respondent. The office note is to the effect that notice was served validly. The report of the process server is available on record and it shows that although the respondent has received the notice on 30th January, 2011 before 14-2-2011, the date fixed for hearing but he has not chosen to appear and contest the writ petition. On behalf of petitioner it has been submitted that a minor punishment of recovery of Rs.64,428/- was imposed upon the respondent/applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna and the amount was recovered also. There was no defect found in the proceeding for minor punishment because punishment was imposed after affording opportunity to file show cause. The submission is that the learned Tribunal Committed a mistake in allowing by the impugned order dated 28th May,2010 when there was no good reason to interfere with the minor punishment which was obviously for apparent lapses on the part of the respondent in drawing huge amount at the close of the working day and keeping the same in a damaged admirah when a new almirah was already available. 3 We have gone through the impugned order of the Tribunal and we find that the Tribunal has interfered only by observing that representation of the applicant was not considered in the right perspective. In our considered view, when there was no illegality, unfairness or mala fide in the decision making process, the out-come of a proceeding for minor punishment should not have been interfered with only on account of a plea that representation was not considered properly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Tribunal has interfered with the order of punishment imposed upon the respondent without any justifiable reasons. Hence, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 28th May, 2010 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Since the respondent has not appeared, there shall be no order as to costs. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Shivaji Pandey,J)