IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No.5^^ of2009 PETITIONER Union of India, through : The Superintendent of Post Offices, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENT ^ y^' i!i- fgf-' ^ap&-" i€)-^ Makhani Bai, aged about 56 Years, W/o of Late Ran Sai Sahu, R/o Village Salkhan, Police Station Sheorinarayan, . Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226_OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^SE^ mGH<xnnRi"o»9ca2H^i"ras<aH^A^Sia-^^ WRFPp?TIT'I©M;{Splo.S^^ P.Eym'IONBat lariion ^ri'India '.'V'eraus"-.'.:';'•:.. :; .:r/,:::^/?-: RESlPCUIDEaTT ..,:-.•: ..:;".:Mald3aiu ^Bai- . ,1 : •DBs-.HOW'BI^'^iRia^.yiKflMai^^:-::'^ : TaG^ieEsssis^Sf^^Ssi^sWS^W^ ^s:::'::' •'.:;.:: ^ ^' •Y:: • •.::::: :1< 1: '^. :^^BCT.:-';'::,.^;'i::-::.-..^:;..:.:'.: :'.<' Sfflf^ Fteu^ Mirzay ^stfc ^ : .•.^•;'pGti^n^:,^^,: ...•^% '? 8hriAshokSwaiiikai,Ady^ :.'^0.:i^A:^®®:®;:^R:'.^::^.'.-'-:;le'^..-;;'. ,^ .i.-^(2-8-2<3%:..:.'.:,:.:::: •:.;.. ^. ..,::::''' - 1. Th^ wi-if petitioirfaas be^ filed against^^^^t^ mipugneff order ^OW ^ M^, 20^ pa^^ ^^V^^^^^e^ Tribunal,^^^ /i:Se?iiK308.^^^ft2^^^^^^^ 2; Bneflgcts ofthec^^ are^h^at^'B^ was Postal Assistant in Akaltara Post ': OfBGe urider 1 fhe petitk>Her No.^^^^ applicationb^o^ theonierdated 15-1-2007 imposi^ : ^ :servi(^.upon-fhe::dfieeased.':''';::':^:' ^ ''::;'::-;; :' l'';. ' :'\:"^:^.: 3. Admittedfacts aret3^fhe4 Akalfara, S.Q, Re(;oidslio^f^^ 7-5-2Q05; & flie p<^ oEBEe biW A: 2QO&, Ae visited the post ^o^^ inspectipn By Sub DivisiOTia^ SalMi?aiid he ibuhd Qiat sQm.e^^^p^ chipk^ and aa^^ found. Char^ sheet^ ^ acGepted pie charge^^^^ punlshment ctfdismiss^ ^ above.',:^.,/^.;.^ '^;.1':^;'.1,^^ ^;'::" -':' .'.'::.:".: -'''/: .. :":;.":^"'.:.'''-';:'^""^" bw&^S^sSmSSSSS » ^ ; .^^^^Q.LJ. examinatiQn of the deceased dellnqiient was got cdnducted and accordmg to Ifae medical repoi^ but was not uitomcated, furtlier fhat he was not on duty on 6-5-2005 and siibmitted his jotamg on diityoit 7-5-2005, fhird w^ that a group of post men was eattngJ?pti Ghicken and a bottle of 35Q inl ofUquor was recovered fi-om fhat room in which fhey were eating, but no one was-chai^e sheeted except fhe deceased delinquent. Accordiag to the chai^e sheet, he consumed Uquor durlng oflBce hours but in OI.IT opinion, the delinquent was not on duty and fhere was restriction to consume liquor on duty by a govemment servanfc According to medical report, it was not clear as tq whether he Gdnsumed liqucn- or any medicane m wllich a percent^e of alcohol is mixed as aGcorduig to medical report he was not intoxicated. It was all fhe reasons, the Tribunal aUowedtheorignalapplicationqi.iashmgfheimpugnedorder wlth fhe bbseFvatkm (hat svsse the deUnquent emplpyee had expH^^ 5-Ip-^(n, the ques^^ not arise and fhe pn]y corMequenG&^ beinglus widow would l3e entitled^toallterimiialbeiiefitsand the petitipliers were directed to Telease tenninal benefits within a period of fbur moaiths fi^^ date of communiGatton ofthe prder. r 5. There is no silfilcient ground to inteiferc in ihe unpugned order passed by fhe Administrative Tribunal as at fhis sfage when the delinquerit employee is no more, fhe inatter is not Uable to be reinitted forlresh Gonsideration and, therefore, in our opinion, the writ petitioh deserves to be and 1s hereby dismissed. 6. No order as to costs. SdA I.M.Quddusi ; Judge Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge '