HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILA^UK &IVI3ION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI JAS&ISH BHALLA. Ag. CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SATISH K. A6NIHOTKI, J. Writ Petltion No.1337 of 2004 Petitioners 1. The Senior Superintendent of Post, Raipur &ivision, Roipu' (C.S.) 2. Union of India, represented Tiirough Secretary, &eptt. of Communications, Deptt. of Posts Mew E)e!hi. 3. The Member personnet) Postat ServiceS Board, E>ak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 4. The Chief Postmaster Seneral M.P. Circle, Bhopal (M.P.) B. The Director Postal Services O/o P.M.S. Raipu- Re9ion Raipur 7. Shri V.P. Singh the thcn Sr. Siytd. Of Post Offiees Bhopai Eiivision, Bhopat. Shrl P.0. Babhre Inquiry Officer <& ASP Sdb-Division R<unandgaon (C.6.) Versus Resoondents 1. Smt. Bina Shah, W/o. Shri Shdlesh Shdh, aged c&out 43 year's, Ex-Posta! Asstt. Raipur (C.6.) r/0. Mili convent Schoo!, Rouo Talob Raipur (C.S.) 2. The Central Administrative Triburwl Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Court Sittirg <»t Sllaspur (C.S.) Tnroigh its Registrar. Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India -^L.__ /. "i- S^^?4ffrc'f^'' Present: Shri SK Beriwal, Stimding counsel for the petitioners. Smt Fouzia Mirza, counsel for respondent Ne.l. ORAL OR&ER (Passed en 2ri Jamiary. 200% The following orat order of the Court was passed by Hon'ble Jagdish Bhalla.. Ag. C.J. This writ petition is directed against the Judgment dated 26 September, 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunat, (hereinofter referred to as, "Tribunal"). Re^iondent No.l was working as a Postal Asssstant 'm the Head Office, Raipur. She wcs char9e-sheeted on -riie ground that she failed to deposit the full money and there wos shortage of fts.12,697-18 in cash box which was detected in the aftemoon at 4 pm. Leamed Tribunolafter giving sufficient opportunity to -the parties allowed the Original Applicort-ion of the applicant/ respondent No.l interalia indicating therein that though the scope is limited for showing any interference, in light of the decision of 8C Chatwvfdl Vs Uniw ef Inelia, (1996) 32 ATC 44 the Tribumil had shown interference indicart-ing •that the penalty imposed does not commensurate with Ihe charges, ond in such circumstances, matter was nemanded back to •the disciplinary and appeilate autliority so as some other punishment could have been imposed except removal or dismissnl from servioe. Aggriewct by •ttie same, tfiis writ petition has been preferred on the ground thfft the appticant/respondent No.l failed to deposit the money indicated hereinabove, therefore, she has been rightly dismissed from the service 'after an enquiry. Leamed counsel insisted •ttiat it was part of the duty of -tfie applicant/respondenT no.l to dteposit ttie money with the treasurer. It has been furlher submitted that the Tribunal did not have any jurisdiction to interfere as far as tfte punishment is concerned. Once •the Tribunat hos found that the IB EB - 'i- ffi-ys-s.^"% ? -j ;:7 / applicant/respondent No.l did not strictly follow the instructions by depositing the amount wi-t+i the treasurer, in the process, held that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges tevelled against the opplicant/respondent No.l. Leamed counsel for the petitioners further submitted that he con not throw any light on the view taken by the Apex Coua't in the judgment of BC Chaturvedi (supra) because he could not find copy of the said jud9ment. However, learned counsel relied upon 2006 Lcd> I.C.P 3996 in the matter of State of UP & Others Vs RaJ Kishwe Yadew & Arwther. The relevant portion of ihe said judgment is as under ; Para - 4 — On a consideration of the entire materiais piacea before Ine authorities, they came to the conclusion ihat the order of dismissal would meet the ends of justice. When a Writ Petition was fited challenging "the correctness of the order of dismissai, the High Court interfered with tiie order of dismissa! on the ground that the acts complained of were sheer mistates or errors on +he part of +he reqaondent herein ond for that no punishment could be crl-t-ributed to the respondent. In our opinion, the order possed by the 1-ligh Courr quashing the order of dismissai is nothing but me error of Judgment. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in allowing the Writ Petition and quashing the ora'er of dismissai and grontin9 continuity of service wi-rti a!! pecunkiry and consequentia! service benefits. It is a settled law that the Hi9h Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the findirigs recorded by the Enquiry- Officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed. As already noticed, -Hie charges are very serious in nature and the aams hme been proved beyond cny doubt. We have also carefully gone through the Enquiry Report and the order of the Disciplinary Authority and of the Tribunal wid we are unabte to agree with •the reasons given by the High Court in modifying the punishment imposed by the l>!Scipiinary Autiiority. In diort, the judgment of the 1-ligh Court- is no-thing but -s perverse. We, therefore, have no other option except to set aside the order passed by the t-iigh court and restore the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority ordering dismissal of the respondent herein from service. It is ordered accordin9ly. Tne Civii Appeai stands aliowed." Learned counsel for the petitioners fur-ther submitted -that no ratio has been laid down in the above judgment relied upon by him. Learned counsel for respondent No.l submitt'ed that it wasnot the duty of the applicant/respondent No.l to deposit the money with the treosurer. However, it was the duty of the treasurer to come and collect the money and in •ttiis connection die relied upon Rulf 23/1 of Postal Mamial Vohvne VI Part - 1 page 24-2S. The said rule is as under: "23/1. Periodical collection of surolus cash receipts from counter assistant. - All head postmceters Qncluding presidency postmasters) and sub-postmasters in charge of important sub-offices will make suitable arrangements in their offices to reiieve every officiai receiving money (inciuding cheques) in respeet of bepartmental transactions as atso stamp vendors of surplus coilections received from the public in notes ond cheques at convenient intervals during working hours so that targe sums moy not remain in their hands for a long time. For this purpose the treosurer or his assistonts, or the supervising officers in Ihe absence of the officials of •1+ie treasury department will, from time to time, visit every such officiai ond coiiect from them the surplus money received from the public. All the omounts collected shouk) be loged in -the treasury or in the office safe as circumstonces may require. All the money made over to the treasurer or a supervising officer should be noted by every such official concerned in the receipt book which Aouid be signed by •rtie treasurer or the supervising officer, when taking over at regutar intervals only such round sums in notes, cheques and cash as can easiiy be counted. Tne final adjustment or accounts must be left over till -the close of the ckiy. Care should be taken to woid interference with the work of the officials concerned." <^ -^^»»y^, '•i'""^ M '^ ti %s»».. ''^•'^^^5^^ ^. ,s ~v° / •>~ -.';,S^A''-" '»^.^-i^ y^' -5 It has been further contended that inspite of the above, though there was no mistake of the applicant/i'espondent No.l, but to settle the matter and continue in service the appliccmt has deposited Rs.12,697-15. The receipt of the same has been placed on record os Annexure R/8 of the reply. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners could not throw any light on the Rule referred hereinabove. Learned counsel for respondent No.l had drawn our attention to the fact that thou9h the Judgment of the Tribunal was pronounced on 26.09.2003, aggrieved by the same this petition was filed and no interim order was granted by this Court, inspite of the same, r-espondent No.l has not been allowed to work though on several occasions she requested OTter a/iafor the work to be allotted to her. We are of the considered opinion that the authorities had no other option except to allow respondent No.l to work. We find thot the Tribunal has considered its jurisdiction while dealing with the matter omd had come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has very limited jurisdiction in the matter, however, the Tribunal had diown interference in li9ht of the judgment of BC Chaturvedi (supra). We further find that it was the duty of the treosurer to collect the money ond not of respondent No.l to 90 and deposit the money. We also find that leamed Tribunal has rightiy relied upon the jud9ment referred to hereinabove onid not erred in law in allowing the original application. Further, learned counsel for the oetitioners could not indicate ony substantial around to show interference in the matter while exercising our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Before we part, we would like to observe that the counsel who comes to argue a matter must ensure that the judgment referred :f!SM3"-, a9ainst him by the Tribunal be looked into; oniy then, any argument can be advanced against the said judgment. In the case in hand the judgment relied by the Tribunal is not available with the leamed counsel for the petitioners. In light of •the above, no interference is warranted. Accordingly; the writ petition is dismissed. pcdma"'., Sd^..,,.., g chiefJustice SdA satish K. Agnihotri Judge