Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Pradeep Kumar Ojha vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 8 December, 2008
OPEN COURT CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH : ALLAHABAD Original Application NO.135 OF 2008 ALLAHABAD THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. YOG, MEMBER-J Pradeep Kumar Ojha, Son of Late Sri Murlidhar Ojha, Resident of Village & Post-Zamin Belari @ Kothiya (Azmatgarh State), District Azamgarh. . . . . . . . . .Applicant By Advocate : Shri P.K. Dwivedi Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Department of Post, South Block, New Delhi. 2. Post Master General, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur. 3. Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh. 4. Director, Post Services, in the office of Post Master General, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur. . . . . . . . . . Respondents By Advocate : Shri S. Singh ALONG WITH ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 133 OF 2008. Late Sri Murlidhar Ojha, Gramin Dak Sewak, Branch Post Master, Village Zamin Belari @ Kothiya (Azmatgarh State) District Azamgarh. ......Deceased Employee Radhika, Widow of Late Sri Murlidhar Ojha, Resident of Village & Post-Zamin Belari @ Kothiya (Azmatgarh State), District Azamgarh. ....Applicant. By Advocate : Shri P.K. Dwivedi Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Department of Post, South Block, New Delhi. 2. Post Master General, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur. 3. Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh. 4. Director, Post Services, in the office of Post Master General, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur. . . . . . . . . . Respondents By Advocate : Shri S. Singh O R D E R
DELIVERED BY JUSTICE A. K. YOG, MEMBER-J
1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the pleadings and the documents annexed therein. The applicant was subjected to disciplinary enquiry on certain charges. Thus charges were framed, Enquiry Officer appointed, and thereafter disciplinary authority passed order of punishment dismissing him from service on 25.05.2007 (Annexure SCA-1 to the short CA filed by the respondents). Feeling aggrieved applicant filed appeal (Annexure-4 -compilation II to the OA) which has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority by means of the impugned order dated 03.12.2007 (annexed with the OA at pp. 14 of the OA compilation).
2. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that order of punishment as well as Appellate order confirming dismissal order are illegal and arbitrary. It is contended that he had been repeatedly requesting for summoning one Ram Bahadur Yadav, r/o Village-Deopur, Post Bilari alias Kothiya. In support of his submission he refers to the memorandum of appeal, report of the Enquiry Officer dated 13.04.2007 (part of Annexure-7 to short CA) wherein applicant disclosed the name of said 'Ram Bahadur Yadav' as his witness in his defence. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that entire disciplinary proceedings are vitiated in as much as the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority ignored this witness Ram Bahadur Yadav a proposed witness in his defence. Learned counsel for the applicant tried to improve his case (without requisite pleadings) by submitting that the applicant had ensured presence of Ram Bahadur Yadav during disciplinary proceedings/enquiry but the authorities in question failed to record his statement. Learned counsel was required to show that it is duty of the prosecution to call and record findings of witness or otherwise record reasons for its failure. There is no pleading or material to show that the applicant, at any stage attempted to produce Ram Bahadur Yadav for his statement but he was presented by Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority. There is nothing on record that applicant made any effort to produce said Ram Bahadur Yadav as his witness. There is no pleading or material on record to show that Ram Bahadur Yadav was sought to be produced by the applicant as his witness but he was not examined by the respondent authorities, or he was arbitrarily prevented to give his statement during courses of argument is therefore to be ignored.
3. I find no illegality in the impugned order/s. The OA is accordingly dismissed. No Costs.
(JUSTICE A.K. YOG) Member-A /ns/ 3