^^^^^^ XI-HC—78 , ^TT^T '^T 'f^ri^ WT 371^?T ^CTW "3'^r ^ii^Kn^ ^Ti1^<li<o, f®i<rii^t^< ^ITWfT W*llct» "^200 aTI^T 'q^RT (^f^^) DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. DHIREN HON'Bl.E MR. R.N. CHj< WntPetitJ<hNp, 1219/2004 (Petition under Articie 24 Petitioner Surendra Chandrakah Post AAastt Thona: Patb Vs Rsspondents Un| &e| r^ 4. Th &h (Ci .5. Th Tr Ja Present: Mr. B.P. Rao, Advocate for the Mr. Ajay Bari, Advocate appe^xrs Standing Counsel for responden( ORA L ^Ath io cbNid^'1 ^l^dll^t'fe^t <r3|'^i< i^affiw^TT^T ^A MISHR^ 8t NDRAMR. JJ of the Constitution of India) lumar Chandrakar, S/o Shri Baldau Prasad k, Aged around 40 years, Ex.-E.D. Bronch r, Resident at: yilJGge and Post: Jamgaon, in, District: Durg (C6) 1. Un|on of India, Through the Secretary, 3artment of Posts, Ministry of •smunicQTIon, Sanchar BhGwan, New Deihi. 2. Th^ Member'-(ED-Cell), Postai Service Board, De^artment of Posts, Ministry of Co{|nmunScatjon, Sanchar BhawQn, New-DeIhi. 3. Th^ birector, Po^tai Services, Office of the Po^t Master Senerat, Chhattisgarh Circie, RaJpur (CG) Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Durg |sion, Civic Centre, Bhilai, District Durg K Registrar, Central Adminigtrative ?una!, CGravs Buiiding, South CivH Lines, 'alpur (M.P.) tetitioner. on behdf of Mr. S.K. Beriwal, ts. OL R D E ft ^^^^\ ^ay, ^uy^j ^3 ^ ;- ^" •; i!^fcXI-HC—78 \s.\ ^T^T ^CT 'f^fTSF 'TOT 3?T^T sin^ic^ 'TSET ^i^i<n<4, yal'(-i''i<o, f®i<ni<-i<j,< ii*iCTiwn^» "^200 3TI^T 'q^'^ (^f^^T) ^TOT'^H^TT^? -2^-t &hjrendra Mishra^ J: 1. The instant petition is passed in O.A. No.91/01 Jabalpur, Bench at Bilaspur the petitioner preferred Authoritv. 2. Briefly stated. focts of the as Extra Departmental Bran^ Villa9e Jamgaon, Patan, Disti jQmgoon the petitioner recei^ from swing bank account thus received by him WQS en' holder, however, the same obove fact was reveated ordered. Charge^ were frcuiK same. Enquiry Officer ofter to the Disciplinary Authorit^ petitioner ore proved. Th< finding of the enquiry office imposed penalty of removal dated 30.6.1999. Appea! pre cM^I<n<i1i 'HW^if ^ fe^ <f^i^i< ^3^m37T^T direcjted woinst the ordec dated 11.12.2003 wher^by the Central Administrative TribunQl, iQS disrpissed the oriQinal opplication of cgai^st the order passed by the bisciplinary tase are that the petitioner was working th Post Master (For short "EDBPM") at ^ict Durg. While workir^ as EDBPM at kd a sum of Rs.5400/- on four occQSions Shri RekhurGm yadav and the money \ered into the pass book of the account not deposjted in the post office. The su^sequently and therefore, ©nqyiry WQS |d QQdn^t the petitioner, who denied the |conductin9 enquiry submitted hi5 report and held that the charQes Gaainst the Disciplinary Officer considering the ^ and other material Qvailable on record service on the petitioner vide order ^ferred by the £)etitioner was dismi^ssed hoftler wds sut?s ft'om ^ 'l. Xi ;&^... -tic— .78 ? V3?1^t 'SFT Rrl1cb ~W(l 3?TT^T^qN? 1"! ^i:;i'i Vb5 ~S^ "Ml^Krt^, ^•al-(-i''i<o, f®i<'ii<-ilj,< *II*ICTI d»*<(<ct» "^200 3n^rrTpw (yif^<^r) ^wi^R ^f^a 3TT^T -3' by the appellQte authority <|nd thereafter reyiew petition has also been dismissed. 3. The Centrd Administrative T| observation that the ©nquir^ CM^(<n<Ili 'RT^ft ^ fs^ <Ft^i< ^3tfiFT3T^T ribunal csfter hearin9 learned counsel for the parties dismissed the ori^inal Qpplicationof the petitioner with an is weli held in accordance with ruies. Charges hwe been found t^ be proved against the applicant, re- appraisal of evidence is not p| into the quantum of the puni^ therefore, punishment canno ^rmissible and it is also permissible to go hsment unless it shocks the conscience of the tribunal. Charge tevel€|d Q9ainst the applicant is grave and ^ be treated os disproportionate to the misconduct committed by thejapplicant. 4. AAr. Rao, learned counsel for ^he petitioner submitfi that th@re was no complaint by the account hol|jer that annount deposited by him in th© post office was not credit^ in his account thou9h the same was entered in the pass book. ^t was personal transaction between the account hoider and the peti^ioner and mistake committed, if any, is only ne9lsgence on the par disproportionate punishmenl of the petitioner ond for the same of removal from service has been imposed. 5. On the other learned coun^et for the respondents supports the impu9ned order. •4- .•••1^; ::^ • XI-HC—78 s .3?i^y^ t^iw WT 3H^T 9b*iior» ^ ^c '3~5£T r^i^i<n^ ^xil^^Ko; [^<ni<i^< *im<ni (b*iict» "^200 sn^r •'ra^ ('4c<i^«i<^) wnw^Tf^T^n^T ^t 6. We have heard leorned counst impugned order by the CAT a^ Disciplinary Authority. 7. Toking into consideration th duties as E&BPM is responsi|b holders ond deposit the same| only thereafter to make enti^i account holder. Further consi<| there in the account of said been made by the petitioner any ilieaality or infirmity in discipiinary authority and sub4 8. In the result, the petition ha4 and is hereby dismissed. No o| Sd/- I Dhirendra Mishra Judge obl14id^i1'1 TTO^Tf ^f Fs^ <r»it^i< ^s'tfimsn^T for the parties. We have perused the also order of punishment passed by the it the petitioner while dischar^inQ his to obtain money from the account in the credit of the account hoider and ies in the pass book of the concerned |erin9 that no correspondin9 entries are |xccount holder thou^h the ©ntrieshave limself in his pass book. we do not find order of punishment imposed b/ the |equently confirmed by the CAT. no substonce. the same deserves to be rder as to costs. ~— the Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge