IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 12907 of 2007(S) -------------------------- OA.155/2004 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.KRISHNAN,AGED 53 YEARS,S/O.POLAN, KAILUVAYAL,NIRVARAN,PANAMARAM,WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.M.V.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,DAK BHAVAN,NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 033. 3. THE POST MASTER GENERAL,OFFICE OF THE POST MASTER GENERAL,NORTHERN REGION,CALICUT673 011 4. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, NORTHERN REGION,CALICUT- 673 011. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, THALASSERY DIVISION,KANNUR. 6. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH FOR R SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, CGC FOR R 1 TO 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.12907/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF MEMO NO.INV/4-1/99-2000-DISC. CASE DATED 12/04/2000 OF R4. P2 : COPY OF WRITTEN BRIEF DATED 29/01/2001. P3 : COPY OF THE INQUIRY REPORT. P4 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09/07/2001. P5 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN MEMO NO.INV/4-1/99-2000/DISC. DATED 26/11/2001 OF R4. P6 : COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE R3 BY THE PETITIONER. P7 : COPY OF ORDER NO.STA/30-IN/1/02 DATED 13/02/2003 ISSUED BY R3. P8 : COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P9 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 28/11/2006 IN O.A.NO.155/2004. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- WP(C) No.12907 of 2007 (S) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P9 order, whereunder petitioner's challenge against his compulsory retirement was turned down by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. After going through the Tribunal's orders and on hearing both sides, we notice that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner after noticing financial irregularities, by the Inspector of Post Offices. On the very next day, when the Superintendent of Post Offices conducted inspection, he noticed that the irregularities are of higher magnitude. The Department conducted detailed enquiry, and the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of all the irregularities alleged against him. The punishment imposed on the petitioner for the financial irregularities is only compulsory retirement. Admittedly, even the Criminal Court WP(C) No.12907/2007 -2- has convicted the petitioner for misappropriation. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal filed against the judgment and sentence in the Criminal Court is pending, we do not think there is any need for this Court to look into this, because the complaint against the enquiry is only for violation of principles of natural justice, in as much as the petitioner was not given all the documents relied on by the Department. However, we find that the cash shortage noticed on inspection was not denied by the petitioner, and he himself later made up the loss to the Department by depositing the amount. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings in the enquiry based on the evidence collected by the Department. The punishment itself which is compulsory retirement also cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the offences alleged and found against the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg