Raj Narain Ram vs Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kanpur and others

Rakesh Sharma, J.

This writ petition has been filed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 8.7.2003 whereby the original application filed by the petitioner against the punishment order of dismissal, which was confirmed in appeal and review, has been rejected. The petitioner was Postal Assistant and it appears that he was temporarily given charge for a period of about eight days on the post of Sub Post Master, Rawatpur, Kanpur Nagar with effect from 8.3.1986 to 16.3.1986 as the regular Sub Post Master was on leave. A charge sheet dated 29.2.1988 was issued to the petitioner in which it was alleged that certain deposits were made during the period by the recurring deposit holders whose account numbers are mentioned in the charge sheet but he did not show the amount deposited in the sub office account and misappropriated the amounts. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet. An enquiry was held. The enquiry officer found the the petitioner guilty of the charges. An order dated 21.4.1989 of dismissal was passed against the petitioner by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices. Aggrieved an appeal was filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed by an order dated 16.10.1989 and review application thereafter filed was also unsuccessful.

We have heard Sri O.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

It was submitted by the petitioner''s counsel that the depositors were not examined in the departmental enquiry and there was no material on the basis of which finding that the charges were proved could be recorded against the petitioner. It is also submitted that the mere fact that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,353/ in the account of the post office subsequently was not relevant for holding that the charge was proved. Lastly, it was submitted that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is too severe and disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. We have perused the order of the tribunal as well as the enquiry report and the other material on the record of this writ petition. The fact that the petitioner had made the deposit entires in the passbook and the R.D. Journal was not disputed by the petitioner. The fact that the amount was paid by the deposit holders thus stands proved. It was therefore for the petitioner to explain why the amount was not entered in the sub office account and to demonstrate where the money was deposited. The petitioner has not given any proper explanation. Rather the deposit of the money by the petitioner subsequently is a circumstances, which goes against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner contended that it was on the instructions of the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices that the deposit was made. However, in proof of the alleged direction having been given no corroborative evidence has been given by the petitioner. The burden of proof that the deposit was made on the instructions of Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices lay upon the petitioner. Although the depositors were examined during the preliminary inquiry proceedings and the copy of their statements were also given to the petitioner, it is true that no depositor was examined in the departmental enquiry but in view of the fact that the petitioner had admitted having made the entires in the passbook and in the R.D. Journal the fact that the deposits had been made by the account holders is established and non examination of the depositors does not vitiate the inquiry in the facts of this case. It also appears from the order of the tribunal that during the preliminary stage the petitioner had made a confession of committing misappropriation. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to refer to any averment in the writ petition questioning the correctness of the observation made by the tribunal. Under Article 226 of the Constitution it is not for this court to appreciate the evidence and to record a finding on its own. Interference under Article 226 is permissible upon the limited ground regarding procedural irregularities. As regards the submission that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge we find that the charge of misappropriation, which was found to be proved was a serious charge and quiet grave and in the situation the view taken by the disciplinary authority does not appear to suffer from any illegality and we find no good ground to interfere with the Tribunal''s order. Dismissed.