Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Ramapapati Barman vs D/O India Post on 27 May, 2025
1 OA 1812/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
O.A. 350/01812/2018
DATE OF HEARING : 22.04.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27.05.2025
Coram: Hon'ble Smt. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
In the matter of :
Ramapati Barman,
Son of Late Surendra Nath Barman, residing at Village & Post
Office- Garhbari, Police Station- Bhupatinagar, District- Purba
Medinipur, Pin- 721626.
.............Applicant
VS.
1. Union of India, service through the Secretary, Ministry of
Communications and Information Technology, having office at
"Dak Bhavan", New Delhi- 110011.
2. The Chief Post Master General, West Bengal Circle, having
office at "Yogayog Bhawan" (5th Floor), P-36, Chittaranjan
Avenue, 5th Floor, Kolkata- 700012.
3. The Post Master General, South Bengal Region,
Chowranghee, Office at "Yogayog Bhawan" (7th Floor), P-36,
Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata- 700012.
4. The Director of Postal Services, South Bengal Region,
having office at "Yogayog Bhawan" (7th Floor), P-36, Chittaranjan
Avenue, Kolkata- 700012.
5. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Contai Division,
having his office at Post Office- Contai, District- Purba Medinipur,
Pin- 721401.
Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65=
1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone=
d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99
70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar,
SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad
LAL
c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 OA 1812/2018
6. Sri S. S. Hazra, Inquiry Officer & Retired S.P OS, Tamluk
Division, 22, Bidhan Nagar, Post Office- Midnapore, District-
Paschim Medinipur, Pin- 721101.
........ Respondents
For The Applicant(s): Mr. S. K. Datta, Counsel
Mr. B. Chatterjee, Counsel
For The Respondent(s): Mr. B. B. Chatterjee, Counsel
ORDER
Hon'ble Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:
"a) The order dated 5th September, 2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 being Annexure-A-23 hereof, be set aside and quashed;
b) The order dated 14th June, 2016 passed by the respondent no. 5, being Annexure- "A-14" hereof, be set aside and quashed;
c) The purported charge-sheet dated 9th March, 2015 issued against the applicant, being Annexure- A-3 hereof, be set aside and quashed;
d) The purported order dated 20th March, 2017 passed by the respondent no. 4, being Annexure- A-16 hereof be set aside and quashed;
e) The purported order of suspension dated 18th February, 2015 passed by the respondent no. 5 being Annexure- A-2 hereof be set aside and quashed;
f) The purported report of Inquiring Authority dated 28.09.2015 submitted by the respondent no. 6 being Annexure A-12 be set aside and quashed;
g) The respondents and each of them be directed to immediately reinstate the applicant in the post of Postal Assistant in Contai Coastal Division with full back wages;
h) Costs of and/or incidental to this application be directed to be borne by the respondent authorities;
i) Such further and/or other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be given, as to this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 OA 1812/2018
2. For the sake of clarity, facts in the case as stated by the applicant in his OA, are delineated and discussed hereinunder :-
The applicant was appointed as a Postal Assistant in Contai Postal Division on 22.08.1990 and was confirmed in the service on 18.03.1993.
During the periods from 20.07.2009 to 18.06.2010 and from 25.08.2010 to 28.02.2011, the applicant officiated in the post of Inspector of Post Offices and was posted as Inspector of Post Offices (IPOS) of Contai 2nd Sub-Division. In addition, he was also given the duties of IPOS, Egra Sub-Division.
While the applicant had been officiating in the post of Inspector of Post Offices, recruitments were made to the posts of Gramin Dak Sevak. The applicant states that after a lapse of more than four years from the completion of such recruitment process, the applicant was suspended in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding proposed to be initiated against him. The order of suspension was followed by a charge sheet issued on 09.03.2015 inter alia alleging that irregularities were committed by the applicant in recruitment of Gramin Dak Sevak.
3. The applicant submits that on receipt of the order of suspension and charge sheet, the applicant made representations to the authorities requesting them to supply him copies of all the relevant documents pertaining to charges against him, but the requests made by the applicant fell on deaf ears. The respondent authorities even declined to pay to the applicant subsistence allowance in accordance with law during the period of suspension.
3.1 The applicant states that the respondent authorities had specifically been requested to supply to the applicant, as many as 40 documents, all of which were relevant in the context of the charges leveled in the charge sheet issued on 09.03.2015, but out of the said documents sought for, copies of only Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA 1812/2018 19 documents were allowed for supply to the applicant and that too, at a much belated stage rendering the applicant unable to effectively meet the charges.
Amongst the documents allowed by the Inquiry Officer the inspection reports of the relevant period conducted by the Superintendent of POS, Contai Division were denied on the plea of non-availability.
3.2 Learned Counsel for the applicant states that the entire disciplinary proceeding was conducted against the applicant in clear contravention of the basic principles of natural justice and also in breach of the mandates stipulated under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. In course of the disciplinary proceeding and at every stage thereof, the applicant was denied a reasonable opportunity either to cross examine the witnesses of the prosecution or to adequately meet the allegations leveled. In course of the disciplinary proceeding, the applicant was also prevented from examining the witness having personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances. The persons having full knowledge of the relevant circumstances were refused to be produced for being examined. Learned Counsel for the applicant states that it was duty of the respondents to supply to the applicant all the documents referred to in the Annexure- III to the chargesheet the respondents, however, refused to make over to the applicant such documents together with the charge sheet.
3.3 Learned Counsel for the applicant states that on 23.03.2015, the applicant made a specific request to the Director of Postal Services, South Bengal Region for revocation of the order of suspension and the Superintendent of Post Offices, Contai Division simply permitted the applicant to inspect some of the documents chosen by himself without assistance of any defence assistant. The applicant was, however, refused even the copies of such Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA 1812/2018 documents. It was in such backdrop that the applicant was constrained to somehow submit a representation in response to the charge sheet in which the applicant could not adequately address charges not because of any fault on his part but simply owing to the gross illegalities and arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in refusing to make the applicant aware of the contents of the documents sought to be relied upon in support of charges leveled. Without applying its mind to the reply submitted by the applicant, the concerned authority hurriedly constituted a Board of Enquiry and appointed an Inquiry Officer as well as a Presenting Officer. 3.4 Learned Counsel for the applicant states that the respondent authorities ought not to have mechanically appointed the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer without taking into consideration the representation made by the applicant in response to the charge sheet. The concerned authority appointed the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer immediately upon receipt of the reply from the applicant. It is, therefore, apparent that the concerned authority did not at all apply its mind to the representation made by the applicant on 06.06.2015 prior to appointing the Inquiry Officer or the Presenting Officer. The representation/request made by the applicant seeking revocation of the order of suspension was also mechanically dealt with without application of mind. The applicant was also not paid entitled amount of the subsistence allowance while being placed under suspension in accordance with the relevant rules.
3.5 Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that in course of the disciplinary proceeding, the Preliminary Investigating Officer was examined as SW-4. The documents sought to be relied upon in an attempt to substantiate the charges leveled against the applicant were not even verified Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA 1812/2018 or authenticated by the said Preliminary Investigating Officer. On the contrary, a stranger completely unaware of the relevant facts of the case was picked up and chosen to authenticate such documents. The said stranger, who was examined as SW-5 was projected in course of the disciplinary proceeding as the custodian of the relevant documents. However, SW-5 miserably failed to prove any of the said documents or to explain the purport or contents thereof. Without taking into consideration the argument advanced by the applicant, the Inquiry Officer mechanically arrived at a preconceived opinion that all the charges leveled against the applicant had been proved. The report of the Inquiry Officer made no whisper about the specific defence submitted by the applicant against the charges leveled. The applicant made a detailed representation on 02.11.2015 against the Inquiry Officer's report. This representation made by the applicant was not taken into consideration prior to the punishment being inflicted. The order inflicting punishment was passed by the Disciplinary Authority with a preconceived and biased mind. 3.6 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent no. 5 could not have acted as the Disciplinary Authority qua the charges leveled. All charges contained in the charge sheet issued on 09.03.2015 were related to the duties discharged by the applicant in the capacity of Inspector of Post Officer and it was the Director of Postal Service, South Bengal Region, who could act as the Disciplinary Authority. The respondent no. 5 however, exceeded his jurisdiction and arrogated to himself powers not vested in him by law. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.06.2016 passed by the respondent no. 5 removing him from services, the applicant preferred an appeal. This appeal was hurriedly and mechanically disposed of on Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA 1812/2018 20.03.2017 and the arbitrary and perverse order inflicting punishment was upheld and confirmed with a preconceived and biased mind. 3.7 Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the punishment inflicted upon the applicant was grossly disproportionate to the charges. It was not the case of the respondents that the applicant had dishonest motive in discharge of his official duties nor made any personal gain by resorting to any corrupt practice. In the circumstances, a major penalty of removal from the services was not warranted. The disciplinary proceeding against the applicant was initiated principally on the allegation that by reason of alleged failure on the part of the applicant to discharge his duties, inefficient and unmeritorious candidates had been recruited. The subsequent events however, dislodged such allegation because some of the these allegedly irregular appointees have been promoted to next higher post and the others are all continuing in engagement. It is thus established that the very basis of initiation of the disciplinary proceeding against the applicant is not tenable. It was obligatory to seek the advice of UPSC along with the inquiry report. The disciplinary authority failed to meet this obligation and thus, denied the legally enforceable right of the applicant guaranteed under the relevant rules. 3.8 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been penalized for having adhered to the statutory rule as regards eligibility criteria for recruitment as Gramin Dak Sevak. It has been alleged that the applicant had omitted to take note of a circular dated 17.09.2003 modifying the relevant statutory rule. The applicant was not made aware of the existence of such circular and the said circular could not, in any event, have overwritten the statute. In course of the disciplinary proceeding, the applicant was also not allowed to produce Sri S. L. Baskey, the then Superintendent of Post Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA 1812/2018 Offices, Contai Division, as a witness. The said Sri S. L. Baskey had supervised and scrutinized the entire recruitment cases done by the applicant. The applicant submitted a review petition before the respondent no. 2 on 16.08.2017. Since the said review application filed/ submitted by the applicant was pending, the applicant approached this Tribunal by taking out Original Application no. 350/0118/2018. The said application was disposed of by the Tribunal by passing an order on 18.04.2018 directing the respondent no. 2 to dispose of the review application within a period of six weeks. The respondent no. 2 passed an order on 05.09.2018 rejecting the review application. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 05.09.2018 passed by respondent no. 2 is a non-speaking order and is also unreasoned and is lacking in fair play.
4. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant, while working as Officiating Inspector Posts, Contai 2nd Sub Division for the spells from 20.07.2009 to 18.06.2010 and from 25.08.2010 to 28.02.2011, got himself involved in irregular selection and engagement of Gramin Dak Sevaks under the jurisdiction of Contai 2nd Sub Division.
Following prima facie detection of the instances of irregular selection and engagement made by the applicant, he was placed under suspension vide memo dated 18.02.2015. Subsequently, he was proceeded against under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide SPOs memo dated 09.03.2015 followed by corrigendum dated 03.03.2015 and 07.07.2015. On receiving the charge sheet, the applicant denied the charges. Being the Disciplinary Authority, Superintendent of Post Offices, Contai Division appointed the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer to inquire into the charges brought against the applicant. The applicant participated in the inquiry accompanied by his Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA 1812/2018 Defence Assistant. On conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report.
4.1 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the Inquiry Officer concluded that all four Articles of Charge brought against the applicant were proved. In response, the Charged Official submitted his defence representation dated 02.11.2015. Superintendent of Post Offices, Contai Division being the appropriate Disciplinary Authority, on considering the facts and circumstances, findings of the Inquiry Officer and the arguments raised by the Charged Official against the findings of the Inquiry Officer, finally issued the order of punishment vide his memo dated 14.06.2016. The applicant was punished with removal from service.
4.2 Learned Counsel for the respondents further submits that the applicant preferred an appeal dated 04.07.2016 before the Appellate Authority. Director of Postal Services, South Bengal Region being the appropriate Appellate Authority disposed of the said appeal by confirming the order of punishment vide his memo dated 20.03.2017. The applicant preferred a revision petition dated 16.08.2017 before the Chief Postmaster General, West Bengal Circle.
Revisionary Authority rejected the revision petition while confirming the punishment order and the Appellate order vide memo dated 05.09.2018.
4.3 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that both the orders of suspension and the charge sheet were issued by the appropriate authority in accordance with the relevant provisions of rules. There cannot be any illegality in the matter of initiation of disciplinary proceedings when the said proceedings are initiated by the competent authority strictly adhering to the rules governing the same.
Digitally signed by SONALI LALSONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA 1812/2018 4.4 Learned Counsel for the respondents states that the applicant himself applied to officiate in the post of Inspector of Posts on ad hoc arrangement.
After getting his willingness he was ordered to officiate against the vacant post of Inspector Posts of Contai, 2nd Sub Division with the additional charge of Inspector Posts, Egra Sub Division on temporary basis. The arrangement made in his favour was not forced upon him, rather he was willing to perform as Officiating Inspector Posts and on finding him otherwise eligible, he was allowed to act as such. Since the arrangement was purely on temporary basis, no such formal training as prescribed for regular incumbents to the post of Inspector Posts had been imparted to him but in the matter of specific assignments, he was supposed to follow the rules and instructions of the Department governing the said assignments. Similarly he was supposed to observe the rules and instructions associated with the matter of recruitment to the vacant posts of Gramin Dak Sevaks. He made a number of recruitments to the post of Gramin Dak Sevaks without objecting on the ground of so called absence of training and got himself involved in irregular recruitments.
Absence of formal training cannot be an alibi for irregular recruitments by entertaining fake mark sheets without verification or compromising with the comparative merit position of the candidates applying for a particular post.
The plea taken by the applicant regarding non-availability of rule book beforehand cannot also be accepted as a ground for irregular recruitment.
4.5 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that on the one hand, the applicant contends that the inspection by officers was a routine exercise and on the other he contends that 100% scrutiny of all recruitment cases were made by the Inspecting Officer. The scope of scrutiny of recruitment cases during the course of annual inspection is always limited. The irregularities in Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA 1812/2018 recruitment made by the applicant were detected only when further detailed enquiry into the cases of recruitment were undertaken. 4.6 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that Inspector of Posts is the Recruiting Authority of GDSs (except GDSBPMs) within his sub divisional jurisdiction. For any irregularity in recruitment made by him, none other than the concerned Inspector Posts would be held responsible. The observation of the Inspection Authority in his inquiry report has no role or relation with the charges framed against the applicant. The attempt of the applicant to establish his innocence on the strength of the observations of the Inspecting Officer during annual inspection is unfounded and vague. The applicant, while functioning as the Recruiting Authority, is supposed to be guided by the prevalent Recruitment Rules applicable for Gramin Dak Sevaks not by ".........
advices and suggestions as well as instructions received from the Superintendent of Post Offices, Contai Division. .............."
4.7 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the fact that detection of irregularity took place at a belated stage does not imply that the very irregularity did not take place.
4.8 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant was given enough opportunity to inspect all the listed documents of Annexure III of the charge sheet . The applicant inspected part of the said listed documents on 18.05.2015 and completed his inspection of all listed documents on 27.05.2015. Even the applicant's requisition for inspection of documents (even before initiation of inquiry) has been entertained by the Disciplinary Authority only to enable him to submit his defence representation against the charge sheet. During the course of hearing on 07.07.2015, the applicant once Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA 1812/2018 again inspected all the listed documents of Annexure III of the charge sheet. Photocopies of those documents were also supplied to the applicant. Thereafter, applicant submitted a list of 40 items of additional documents during the hearing on 23.07.2015. Out of the requisitioned additional documents, the Inquiry Officer allowed 28 items after considering their relevance to the charge while disallowing the remaining 12 items as those documents were not considered relevant to the charge. Out of 28 items of additional documents as requisitioned and allowed by the Inquiry Officer, 7 items were found available and accordingly allowed to be inspected by the applicant, remaining 19 items were not found available; whereas the rest 2 items could -not be readily supplied as those were not specific. Subsequently, one more item out of 2 non-specific items was allowed to be inspected by the applicant. The applicant was given enough opportunity at all stages in the entire inquiry. Neither did he raise any objection regarding denial of reasonable opportunity at any stage of the inquiry nor do the Daily Order Sheets recorded in token of day to day proceedings leave any impression about any instance of denial of reasonable opportunity. The applicant was never prevented from examining/ cross-examining the witnesses. 4.9 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the appeal dated 23.03.2015 preferred by the applicant against his suspension was duly considered and disposed of by the Appellate Authority as communicated vide RO memo dated 10.06.2015. Since the matter of his suspension was already taken up by the Suspension Review Committee, the Appellate Authority directed the Superintendent of Postal Offices , Contai Division to communicate the findings/recommendations of the said Committee to the applicant. Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA 1812/2018 4.10 Learned Counsel for the respondents further states that the Disciplinary Authority applied its mind and accordingly decided to appoint Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the applicant. Appointments of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were issued on 18.06.2015 only after receipt of the representation dated 06.06.2015 wherein the applicant denied all the charges and desired to be heard in person. SW-4 and SW-5 were duly cross-examined by the applicant on 12.08.2015. The applicant did not raise any objection in the matter at that time. The allegation is understandably an afterthought attempt to somehow put question over the veracity on the oral evidences adduced in the inquiry. 4.11 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that vide para 6 of the Inquiry Report, Inquiry Officer clearly mentioned all the arguments raised by the applicant in his defence brief. Vide para 7 of his report, which was captioned as 'Analysis and assessment of evidences with discussion of arguments made by the charged official', the Inquiry Officer duly took into consideration all the arguments raised by the applicant in his defence brief and made a logical analysis as to how and why those arguments are not sustainable or acceptable. The arguments raised by the applicant in his defence representation dated 02.11.2015 were duly taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority and logically refuted by the said Authority before concluding that each Article of charge stood established against the applicant.
The Disciplinary Authority, on considering the gravity of the offence committed by the applicant by misusing his official position , did not consider him fit to be retained in service and accordingly awarded the penalty of 'removal from service. The punishment order issued against the applicant was fair and justified in view of the fact that the applicant made irregular Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 OA 1812/2018 recruitments to a good number of vacant posts of GDS(s) while depriving other meritorious candidate(s) and also by entertaining fake marksheet to select and engage one candidate in a vacant post of Gramin Dak Sevak. 4.12 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in accordance with his substantive post of Postal Assistant, Superintendent of Post Offices, Contai Division( Respondent No. 5) was the appropriate Disciplinary Authority of the applicant. Hence, Respondent No. 5 initiated disciplinary proceeding against him and finalized the said proceedings well within his competency, as per the Schedule of disciplinary powers. The appeal dated 04.07.2016 was duly considered but rejected by the Appellate authority vide his memo dated 20.03.2017 . The Appellate Order is speaking and reasoned enough to repudiate the baseless allegations against the applicant. A perusal of the Appellate Order dated 20.03.17 clearly reveals that the Appellate Authority has applied its mind and disposed of the appeal on going through its merit. 4.13 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the fate of the irregularly appointed candidates is a matter to be separately decided. Fate of the applicant of commission of irregularities in recruitment cannot be linked up with the fate of the candidates irregularly appointed by him. 4.14 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the defence assistant of the applicant was not present on the hearing dated 04.08.2015 which was fixed for inspection of allowed additional documents by the applicant primarily with the help of his defence assistant. On that day's hearing, the applicant himself submitted that he did not require his defence assistant for the said purpose, as he could inspect the additional documents independently. Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 OA 1812/2018 4.15 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the question of obtaining UPSC's advice in such case does not arise. The applicant was a Gr. C employee and in service while disciplinary proceeding was going on against him.
4.16 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that as per Government of India, Department of Posts, Letter No. 22-12/2001-GDS dated 17.09.2003 the sole criteria for selection to the post of GDS, will be merit, subject to order on reservation and fulfilling of other eligibility criteria before appointment. The said instructions of the Department clearly implies that at the time of selection the sole criterion will be merit and all other conditions, like taking up residence at the delivery jurisdiction of the B.O and giving undertaking of having other source of income etc. will be looked into only after the selection but before appointment But in course of selection made by the applicant against the vacant GDS posts, as mentioned in Article II, III & IV of the charge sheet dated 09.03.2015 , the applicant did not follow the said instructions of Government of India, Department of Posts, Letter No. 22-12/ 2001- GDS dated 17.09.2003 thereby depriving meritorious candidates who would otherwise deserve selection in the vacant posts towards considering final appointment, Argument of ignorance of the instruction dated 17.09.2003 by the applicant during his acting period of Inspector Posts, Contai 2nd Sub Division from 20.07.2009 to 18.06.2010 and 25.08.2010 to 28.02.2011 is nothing but an afterthought which is not acceptable for the obvious reason, as also discussed by the Inquiry Officer.
4.17 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the ground on which Sri S.L. Baskey, the then SPOs, Contai Division was not allowed by the Inquiry Officer for summoning as Defence witness, has been elaborately discussed by Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 OA 1812/2018 the Inquiry Officer while recording Daily Order Sheet dated 12.08.2015. Besides, it may be noted that Inspector Posts is the recruitment authority of Gramin Dak Sevaks (Except GDSBPM) within his Sub Divisional jurisdiction and he is, therefore, solely responsible for any irregularity in recruitment process. In this case, the applicant is only responsible for the irregularities as alleged in Article I,II,III & IV of the charge sheet dated 09.03.2015. Thus, neither Sri S.L Baskey, the then SPOs, Contai Division nor any other authority has any role or involvement in irregularities committed by the applicant in the matter of recruitment made by him in the vacant GDS posts. In his representation dated 02.11.2015, the applicant has himself admitted that above all, the said Sri S.L Baskey was in no way connected to the process of leveling the instant charges against him.
4.18 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the entire disciplinary proceeding has been conducted in clear adherence to the statutory rules. There was no denial of reasonable opportunities as per the principles of natural justice. The revision petition dated 16.08.2017 as preferred by the applicant against the Appellate Order has also been rejected by the Revisionary Authority vide memo dated 05.09.2018. Revision petition was rejected by the Revisionary Authority through an analysis based on cogent reasons. Revisionary order dated 05.09.2018 is speaking and reasoned. 4.19 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant has vaguely attempted to bring contradictions between statutory rules and departmental circulation dated 17.09.2003. Actually, there is no such contradiction in the matter of selection and engagement to the vacant posts of Gramin Dak Sevaks so far as the rules and instructions are concerned.
Whereas the Departmental circulation dated 17.09.2003 stipulates for merit Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 17 OA 1812/2018 being the sole criterion for selection, all other terms and conditions contained in GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 relating to Gramin Dak Sevaks are applicable after selection but before engagement of Gramin Dak Sevaks. 4.20 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the Inquiry Officer acted well within his own competence and jurisdiction. Question of having exercised unbridled power by the Inquiry Officer in the matter of allowing one defence witness while disallowing another on considering their respective relevance with the charge does not arise. Had the applicant been really prejudiced by the decision of the Inquiry Officer, he could have moved bias petition against the Inquiry Officer but he did not. While allowing some additional documents, the Inquiry Officer disallowed some other additional documents requisitioned by the applicant clearly and vividly discussing in the Daily Order Sheet dated 04.08.2015 as to how and why those documents are not found relevant to the charge by him.
4.21 Learned Counsel for the respondents reiterated that the penalty inflicted upon the applicant is commensurate with the gravity of the charges brought against him. In each of the four Articles of charge, the applicant was imputed for violation of Rule 3(1)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. As all four articles of charge stood established against him, the conclusion led to the fact that the applicant failed to maintain absolute integrity while discharging the role of Recruiting Authority in the capacity of Officiating Inspector of Posts, Contai 2nd Sub Division. So, the punishment awarded to him is fully justified. 4.22 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the documents requisitioned by the applicant in addition to those already supplied to him and those enlisted with the charges brought against him were not found available and hence could not be supplied and secondly the applicant neither Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 18 OA 1812/2018 in the concerned revision petition nor in the present OA has ever attempted to clarify as to how non-availability of these additional documents could have prejudiced him towards proving his innocence. As burden of proof lies with the prosecution, the respondent no. 5 being the Disciplinary Authority has clearly and unambiguously proved the charges brought against the applicant on the strength of the documents enlisted and produced in course of the inquiry.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the documents on record.
6. From a perusal of the reliefs sought in para 8 of the OA, we observe that the applicant has sought relief in two separate matters- his suspension and the disciplinary proceeding against him. This is in contravention of Rule 10 of CAT (Procedure) Rules which prohibits plurality of reliefs in one application.
However, since this fact was neither pointed out by the respondents nor was considered by the Tribunal in its previous hearing in the matter, in the interest of justice, we proceed to adjudicate the matter with respect to the disciplinary proceeding against the applicant.
6.1 The applicant has challenged the disciplinary proceedings against him on the following grounds :-
(i) The applicant being an Officiating Inspector Post and not a regular one was not given training and he was not aware of all the circulars, instructions and rules of recruitment of Gramin Dak Sevaks. He relied on past practice and guidance from his superior officers particularly the Superintendent of Post Offices in this matter.
Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 19 OA 1812/2018
(ii) Since the alleged misconduct pertained to his appointment as officiating Inspector, Disciplinary Authority should have been the Director Postal Services and not the Superintendent of Post Offices.
(iii) The then Superintendent of Post Offices carried out an inspection of all recruitment files and confirmed the correctness of the procedure followed by the applicant while conducting the recruitment.
(iv) None of the candidates who were alleged to have been irregularly recruited were proceeded against by the respondents except one Narugopal Mandal.
(v) There was an inordinate delay of four years between the alleged misconduct and the issue of charge sheet.
(vi) A number of relevant documents sought for by the defence (the applicant herein) were either disallowed by the Inquiry Officer or not made available to the applicant either before or during the inquiry. Neither the inspection report of Sri S. L. Baskey, the then Superintendent of Post Offices for the year 2009, 2010 and 2011 were made available nor did the Inquiry Officer permit production of said Superintendent of Post Offices as witness during the inquiry.
(vii) The objections and concerns raised by the applicant in his representations before, during and after the inquiry and in his representations to the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisionary Authority at various stages of the Disciplinary Proceedings were not properly addressed by the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisionary Authority respectively. Hence the applicant was denied due opportunity and consideration at every stage of Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 20 OA 1812/2018 disciplinary proceeding rendering the Inquiry Officer's report, Disciplinary Authority's order, Appellate Authority's order and the order of the Revisionary Authority unsustainable.
(viii) UPSC's advice was not sought before imposition of punishment of removal from service.
(ix) Circular of 2003, relied upon by the respondents in framing the charges against the applicant, is an administrative order which cannot override the statutory provisions on the subject. The applicant has followed the statute.
(x) No personal gain has been alleged. Punishment of removal is disproportionate.
Respondents in their reply have countered each of the points mentioned above.
6.2 Learned Counsel for the applicant, in his written notes of arguments, has cited the following judgments in support of his argument :-
(i) Union of India and others vs. J. Ahmed in (1979) 2 SCC 286
(ii) P. V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T. N. Housing Board in (2005) 6 SCC 636
(iii) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and another in 1990 SCC 738
(iv) State of A. P. vs. N. Radhakishan in (1998) 4 SCC 154
(v) M. V. Bijlani vs. Union of India and others in 2006 SCC (L&S) 919
(vi) Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and others in (2009) 2 SCC 570 In J. Ahmed (supra), the Charged Official (CO) was the Deputy Commissioner of the district where riots took place. He was primarily charged with inefficiency and negligence of duty. Also, the order of removal was Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 21 OA 1812/2018 passed against him after his retirement from service. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that lack of efficiency and negligence did not constitute misconduct. It was also held that the order of removal from service could not have been passed when the CO had already retired. Hon'ble Supreme Court, accordingly set aside the punishment order. Facts in the instant case are substantially different. There are specific charges of irregularity having been committed by the applicant in conducting recruitment of GDSs which resulted in deserving candidates not being considered for appointment in favour of less deserving candidates who were given appointment by the applicant.
In M. V. Bijlani (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the enquiry report was unsustainable primarily on the ground that the inquiry went beyond the charges framed in the Charge Memorandum. The Charged Official in M. V. Bijlani (supra) was charged with failure to maintain ACE-7 register. In the Charge Memorandum issued to him, he was not charged with misappropriation of funds whereas the inquiry report held him guilty of misappropriation. In the instant case, no such evidence has come to light that the inquiry report or the subsequent action based on the report went beyond the charges contained in the Charge Memorandum.
In Bani Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the authorities were aware of the alleged misdemeanor against the Charged Official , 12 years before he was formally charged. This delay was considered abnormal and relief was granted by the Hon'ble High Court to the said Bani Singh. In the instant case, recruitments were conducted in 2009, 2010 and 2011. The alleged irregularities came to light in 2015. Disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the applicant in the same year and was concluded within a reasonable period with Disciplinary Authority's order on 14.06.2016, Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 22 OA 1812/2018 Appellate Authority's order on 20.03.2017 and Review Authority's order on 05.09.2018. In our opinion, there was no unreasonable delay in either initiating or concluding disciplinary proceeding against the applicant.
We have also gone through the orders in P. V. Mahadevan (supra) and N. Radhakishan (supra) . In P. V. Mahadevan, Hon'ble Apex Court drew attention to para 19 of its order in N. Radhakishan. We consider it appropriate to quote this para in full :-
"19. It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. the essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weight them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he s not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. if the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse consideration."
6.3 Following the dictum laid down above, we now proceed to examine the matter on its facts and circumstances in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments, some of which are reproduced hereinunder :-
In the case of B C Chaturvedi vs UOI reported in 1995 (6) SCC 749 it was held that:Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 23 OA 1812/2018 "judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. The court/Tribunal has its power of judicial review but it does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence in its arrival at its own dependent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in the manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry particularly where the conclusion or finding reached by the Disciplinary Authority is based on no evidence."
Further, in State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. Umesh in Civil Appeal Nos. 1763-1764 of 2022 it was held that:-
"17. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-
appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct."
In the judgment passed by a Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Pravin Kumar v. UOI & ors. (2020) 9 SCC 471 it has been held that:
"it would be gain said that judicial review is an evaluation of the decision making process, and not the merits of the decision itself. Judicial Review seek to ensure fairness in treatment and not fairness of conclusion. It ought to be used to correct manifest error of law or procedure which might result in significant injustice or in case of bias or gross unreasonableness of outcome."
6.4 We have gone through the Charge Memorandum, the inquiry report including records of some of the daily proceedings and the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisionary Authority.
6.5 Substantive post held by the applicant when the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him was that of Postal Assistant for whom, admittedly, the Appointing Authority is the Superintendent of Post Offices. It is therefore held that there was no infirmity in the Superintendent of Post Offices acting as the Disciplinary Authority in the case. In the case of a Group C employee in Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 24 OA 1812/2018 service, consultation with UPSC is not required as per CCS (CCA) Rules. Therefore, we find no merit in the applicant's objection on this ground. 6.6 The Inquiry Officer has recorded his reasons in detail for allowing and disallowing documents and witnesses demanded by the applicant. Copies of letters issued to the applicant annexed by the respondents in their reply bear testimony to the fact that the applicant was given multiple opportunities to inspect the documents even before the inquiry commenced. Similarly, he was permitted to examine and cross-examine the witnesses allowed by the Inquiry Officer after due consideration of relevance which have been recorded by the Inquiry Officer. We do not agree with the applicant's contention that since he was only officiating as an Inspector without training, he was not aware of the relevant rules of recruitment. He had himself volunteered to officiate in a higher post. He was expected to be aware of the rules on a sensitive subject like recruitment. Since he was wholly responsible for conducting the recruitment, he had to take full responsibility for any irregularity that may have occurred in the process. He cannot pass on that responsibility to his superior officer who may have inspected files as a part of his field inspection and not find any irregularity on the spot.
6.7 The applicant preferred representation against the Inquiry Officer's report which was dealt with in detail by the Disciplinary Authority whose decision was upheld by the Appellate Authority and the Revisionary Authority after his appeal and the revision application were considered in detail by the respective authorities. Applicant has made across the board allegation of non-
application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisionary Authority. We have gone through each of those orders and find that due care has been taken by the authorities to consider facts of the case, Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 25 OA 1812/2018 the charges, applicant's defence, inquiry report etc., before arriving at their conclusions. Charges against the applicant has been proved as per each of the authorities mentioned above and the punishment has been imposed after recording detailed reasons for reaching their conclusion. From a perusal of the Inquiry Officer's report, and orders of Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisionary Authority, we find no evidence of lack of application of mind on their part as alleged by the applicant. 6.8 It has been proved in the inquiry that the applicant committed irregularities which resulted in selection of undeserving candidates over those with better claim to appointment as per rules. The fact that the applicant was not charged with having made any personal gain or that such deserving candidates were allowed to continue in their appointment till later does not take away from the seriousness of the irregularity committed by him which resulted in depriving a number of deserving candidate of their legitimate right to appointment.
6.9 It is settled principle of law that in departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge of facts. Once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded by the Disciplinary Authority & Appellate Authority, normally the Court/Tribunal may not interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court/Tribunal, since the High Court/Tribunal does not sit as an Appellate Authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review, the Tribunal cannot, normally speaking, substitute its own conclusion, Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 26 OA 1812/2018 with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities.
6.10 In the present case, this Tribunal by adhering to the aforesaid settled principles of law is of the opinion that there is no procedural lapse in conducting the departmental enquiry, after granting due opportunity to the Charged Official, the DA and AA came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the applicant stand proved and awarded the punishment in the light of gravity of proved charged against the applicant herein. It is therefore held that there is no legal infirmity in the decision making process and the reason assigned by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisionary Authority to come to the conclusion that charges levelled against the applicant stands proved, are cogent and clear. 6.11 The applicant in his OA has submitted that no charges of ill motive or working for personal gain have been brought against the applicant. Therefore, the punishment of removal from service imposed upon him is grossly disproportionate. It has been proved in the inquiry that the actions of the applicant resulted in appointment of undeserving candidates at the cost of deserving ones. The proven misdemeanor on the part of the applicant, in our opinion, is itself grave and the punishment of removal from service is not disproportionate considering the gravity of the offence. Hence, no interference with the impugned orders is called for.Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 27 OA 1812/2018
7. In view of our above discussion and guided by well settled position in law on the issue, we come to the considered conclusion that the Applicant has not made out a case calling for our intervention. The OA lacks merit.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Suchitto Kumar Das) (Urmita Datta (Sen))
Administrative Member Judicial Member
sl
Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65=
1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone=
d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f99 70cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456ad LAL c533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 11:49:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0