Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Ramchandra C Dhavale vs D/O Post on 18 December, 2025
1 OA.284/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
O.A.284/2017
Dated this Thursday the 18th day of December, 2025.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Shri Krishna, Member (Administrative)
Hon'ble Mr.Umesh Gajankush, Member (Judicial).
Shri Ramchandra C. Dhavale,
S/o Chandru Tuka Dhavale, Age 55 years,
Removal from service,
R/at: At Post: Shirale Varun, Taluka: Shahuwadi,
Dist. Kolhapur - 416 552. .. Applicant.
( By Advocate Shri D.N. Karande ).
Versus
1. Union of India, through Secretary,
Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications & IT,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai GPO,
Mumbai - 400 001.
3. The Postmaster General,
Mumbai Region, Mumbai GPO,
Mumbai - 400 001.
Hemant Anant
Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=
cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=
0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a12612
1, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=
44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109,
CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal
4. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Mumbai North-West Division,
Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.01.02 15:58:35+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
Samata Nagar, Kandivali (E),
Mumbai - 400 101. ..Respondents.
( By Advocate Ms.Sharanya Sinha ).
Order reserved on : 07.10.2025
Order pronounced on : 18.12.2025.
2 OA.284/2017
ORDER
Per : Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
The applicant before this Tribunal is challenging the impugned punishment order dated 30.11.2015 and Appellate Order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities with prayer for reinstatement in service.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.12.2013, a Memorandum under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (Annex-A-3) has been issued by the Disciplinary Authority on the allegation that the applicant while working as Postman, Kandivali West Post Office, Mumbai, during the period from 01.01.2007 to 29.11.2010 remained unauthorisedly absent from duties on the occasions stated in the charge-sheet. Thereafter, Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed, inquiry was conducted. During inquiry vide representation dated 08.04.2015 filed by the applicant has admitted the charges unconditionally was due to Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a12612 1, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal frequent illness of his parents. Thereafter, representation dated Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.02 15:58:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 08.05.2015 was submitted by the applicant expressing willingness to take voluntary retirement. Thereafter, inquiry report was submitted in respect of which representation dated 12.08.2015 3 OA.284/2017 was submitted by the applicant and thereafter punishment order dated 30.11.2015 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of removal from service with immediate effect.
2.1. Against the aforesaid order, statutory appeal was submitted on 14.01.2016 before the Appellate Authority which was rejected vide order dated 21.03.2016 by the Appellate Authority.
Therefore, the present O.A. has been submitted by the applicant on the ground that in compelling circumstances (like accidental death of his daughter, frequent sickness of his wife, etc), the applicant was not able to attend his duties during the period shown in the memo of charges.
2.2. It is further submitted that while submitting representation dated 08.05.2015 the applicant also expressed his desire to take voluntary retirement, however, the Respondent No.4 did pay any heed to the request of the applicant. It is submitted that Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a12612 1, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Respondent No.4 did not consider any of the points and in fact the Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.02 15:58:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 defence raised by the applicant was not discussed in the punishment order as to why the Disciplinary Authority has formed opinion to remove the applicant from service. Further, in appeal, 4 OA.284/2017 various grounds were raised including that punishment of removal from service imposed on the applicant is harsh one and shocking to any human being and grossly disproportionate. 2.3. It is submitted that he has not caused any loss to the Department or has not involved in any fraudulent activities.
Further, he has rendered 32 years of service in the Department and the said aspect has not been considered while imposing the punishment of removal which is sheer injustice to the applicant.
3. After notice, the official respondents have filed their reply and contested the O.A. 3.1. It is submitted that the present O.A. which challenges the order dated 30.11.2015 and subsequent order dated 21.03.2016 is untenable in both facts and law. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of both the above impugned orders would reveal complete compliance with the principles of natural justice. This is evident not only from the fact that the applicant was given Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a12612 1, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal adequate opportunity of hearing but also the detailed findings and Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.02 15:58:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 reasoning recorded in said orders, which make both the orders speaking orders and hence warrant no interference. 5 OA.284/2017 3.2. It is submitted that bare perusal of the impugned order reveal that there is continuous, constant and prolonged absence of the applicant herein totalling to about two years, such absence being unauthorised as set out in the said orders does not fall within any exception, warranting a pardon for such frequent and prolonged unauthorised leave. Thus the authorities were justified in ordering the removal from service in case of the applicant herein as he clearly violated Rule 3(1) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 3.3. It is submitted that in view of chronology of the dates and events, factual circumstances stated in the reply, due opportunity of hearing was provided to the applicant during the course of inquiry and in fact the applicant has admitted the charges levelled against him. For the period of absence, there was no application of leave, therefore, on the basis of reply, official respondents have prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
4. Thereafter, rejoinder was filed reiterating and elaborating Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a12612 1, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal the facts.
Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.02 15:58:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
4.1. It was specifically stated that the punishment of removal of the applicant is perfectly unjustified for the only charge of absenteeism is not at all acceptable in view of the facts that the 6 OA.284/2017 applicant was not away from his duties at his sweet will but due to compelling reasons such as illness of his parents and children and due to death of his parents and untimely death of his young daughter. Moreover, he has rendered 28 years of unblemished service (ignoring absence period) in the Department and Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides other three kinds of major punishments also namely reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period; reduction to lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced; and compulsory retirement. These punishments have comparatively less effects on the Government servant than the punishment of removal from service has on him.
4.2. It is further stated that under these circumstances and when absence on the part of applicant is not proved to be wilful, the punishment of removal imposed on the applicant is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of charge. Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a12612 1, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal
5. The official respondents have also files sur-rejoinder Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.02 15:58:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 reiterating their stand and it was specifically stated that the decision of punishment lies with the discretionary power of the Disciplinary Authority. Moreover, the Appellate Authority has also 7 OA.284/2017 affirmed the decision of Disciplinary Authority. The punishment awarded was commensurate with the gravity of charges and found justified.
6. We have heard Shri D.N. Karande, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms.Sharanya Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that during the course of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority has failed to consider the reasons given by the applicant who was unable to perform his duties due to family circumstances. In fact, a specific representation dated 08.05.2015 was submitted by him expressing his desire to take voluntary retirement, however, the same was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority. Looking to the service rendered by the applicant for about 32 years in the Department, imposition of punishment of removal is shocking and disproportionate. Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a12612 1, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal
8. It is submitted that looking to the punishment order dated Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.02 15:58:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 30.11.2015, the Disciplinary Authority has categorically recorded that the representation in response to inquiry report is not considered as the official is abruptly absent from duties since he 8 OA.284/2017 is habitual for this. Non-consideration of representation in respect of inquiry report is contrary to Rule 15(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Even, Appellate Authority has not considered all the grounds raised in the appeal memo, much less grounds of disproportionate punishment and 32 years of service rendered by the applicant in the Department, imposition of punishment of removal forfeit the right of receiving any retiral benefits, which is harsh and disproportionate.
9. During course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the order of this Tribunal in case of Smt.Sucheta Sandeep Madhale Vs.Union of India & Ors., in O.A.No.707/2017 decided by CAT, Mumbai Bench vide its order dated 12.04.2014.
10. On the other hand, Mrs.Sharanya Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the applicant was habitual absentee and, therefore, the charge-sheet was issued Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a12612 1, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal and after appointment of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.02 15:58:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 and following due procedure of law, the punishment was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. There is no procedural flaw in the inquiry proceedings 9 OA.284/2017 and looking to the limited scope of judicial review in the departmental inquiry proceedings, no ground is available to interfere in the impugned orders that too when the applicant himself has admitted the charges levelled against him. Therefore, it is prayed that the O.A. may be dismissed.
11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the major penalty charge-sheet dated 30.12.2013 was issued to the applicant and thereafter Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. It is also not in dispute that during course of inquiry applicant has admitted the charge. However, he has given family reasons for his absence. Thereafter, inquiry report was submitted and in respect of inquiry report, he has submitted representation dated 12.08.2015 (Annex-A-6). In this context, when punishment order dated 30.11.2015 is seen, the Disciplinary Authority has observed as under:-
Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a12612 1, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal "The official submitted his representation in response to Inquiry Report which is not considered as the official is Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.02 15:58:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 abruptly absent from duties since he is habitual for this. The charge is therefore held as proved."
12. At this stage, it is relevant here to reproduce Rule 15(4), (5) and (6) of the CCS (CCA)Rules, 1965 as under:-10 OA.284/2017
"15. Action on the inquiry report (4) The Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation under sub-rule (2) and/or Clause (b) of sub-
rule (3), if any, submitted by the Government servant and record its findings before proceeding further in the matter as specified in sub-rules (5) and (6).
(5) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i) to
(iv) of Rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty.
(6) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clauses (v) to
(ix) of Rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the Government servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed;"
13. Looking to the Rule 15(4), it is clear that it is mandatory for the Disciplinary Authority to consider the representation, if any submitted by the Government servant and record its findings before proceeding further in the matter as specified in sub-rules Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Hemant Anant DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a12612 1, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal (5) and (6). In the present case, looking to the observations of the Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.02 15:58:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Disciplinary Authority in the impugned punishment order, it has been recorded that the representation is not considered. This power has not been vested with the Disciplinary Authority. After 11 OA.284/2017 consideration of the representation, the Disciplinary Authority may take any view but non-consideration of representation is contrary to the statutory rules, arbitrary and non-exercise of powers vested in the Disciplinary Authority. Since this procedure has not been followed by the Disciplinary Authority and, therefore, the order of the Disciplinary Authority is liable to be set aside.
14. Further, Rule 15(5) and (6) also cast duty upon the Disciplinary Authority to either pass punishment prescribed under Clause (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 in respect of Articles of Charges or impose the punishment specified in Clause (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 under Rule 6. Further when the appeal was filed and the specific grounds were raised in respect of disproportionate of punishment, and consideration of long period of 32 years of service, the said aspect has not been considered by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority is also unsustainable.
Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a12612 1, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal
15. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.02 15:58:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to take into consideration the representation of the applicant dated 12.08.2015 (Annex-A-6) in respect of 12 OA.284/2017 inquiry report and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
16. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the O.A. is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
17. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna)
Member (J) Member (A).
H
Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal
Hemant Anant
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a12612 1, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.02 15:58:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0