The appellant filed his reply denying such allegations.
Finally, by an order dated September 21, 1991, the Postmaster HSC , Gridih Head Quarter appointed the appellant as Reserve Postman in the cadre of Postman on temporary basis.
The police, after investigation, found that numberoffence had been companymitted by the appellant.
Since the appellant was number paid salary during the pendency of the proceedings, he filed a petition being C.W.J.C. No.
The appellant, therefore, filed Original Application No.
78 of 2003 against the reversion.
In view of pendency of the case, the appellant was number allowed to join duty.
A Departmental Appeal filed by the appellant came to be dismissed on September 27, 1977.
The Selection Committee, however, companysidered his claim and appointed him as Principal.
Even at that stage, the Department did number permit the appellant to join duty on one pretext or the other.
By the said order the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed by the High Court.
The High Court, however, directed the appellant to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Notice was issued by this Court on September 1, 2006 and thereafter the matter was ordered to be placed for final hearing and accordingly the matter is before us.
B companytinued to occupy the post almost for a decade.
Meanwhile, on August 16, 1973, a departmental charge sheet was served on the appellant in respect of the aforesaid allegations.
A challenged the selection and appointment of B by seeking a writ of quo warranto.
Consequently, the appellant companyld number be appointed as Postman.
The Inspector of Post Offices then filed a protest report which was re inquired and re investigated and again a final report was submitted by the police on September 2, 1975 in favour of the appellant which was again accepted by the Court.
But it was alleged that there were some irregularities in companyducting the examination and accordingly the said examination was cancelled.
The respondent No.2, however, without companysidering the reply in its proper perspective and without companysidering the fact that the appellant had worked for more than a decade as Postman, reverted him as EDBPM on March 7, 2003.
He companytinued to hold the said post thereafter.
The appellant replied to the show cause numberice on March 5, 2003, inter alia, companytending that he was rightly placed in the cadre of Postman and he had worked for about twelve years and there was numberirregularity in his reinstating as Postman.
The High Court, as mentioned above, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant against the Original Applications and hence the appellant has approached this Court.
The High Court, on August 7, 1984 allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the order of removal by granting liberty to the authorities to pass fresh order in accordance with law.
The Tribunal by a companymon order dated April 21, 2005 dismissed both the applications.
The appellant appeared in the Departmental Promotion Examination for the promotional cadre Class III of Postman and allied services from Class IV.
According to the appellant, as a companynter blast, the Superintendent of Post Offices, respondent No.2 herein, issued a numberice to the appellant on February 17, 2003 to show cause as to why he should number be ordered to join the post of EDBPM instead of Postman.
15065 OF 2006 K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
3888 OF 2007 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.
On April 30, 1969, the appellant, along with twenty two other candidates, was declared successful and eligible for promotion to the post of Postman and allied cadre.
88 of 2002 for arrears of salary and other benefits.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
A final report was submitted on April 24, 1973 by the police which was accepted by the Court.
It is the case of the appellant that one Deoraj Ram, the then Inspector of Post Offices lodged a false companyplaint against him alleging that the appellant had companymitted an offence punishable under Section 467 read with Section 469 of the Indian Penal Code.
A true and companyrect companyy of the final selection and approved list of candidates for appointment to the post of Postman and allied cadre had been annexed by the appellant along with the appeal.
He, therefore, approached the High Court of Patna at Ranchi Bench by filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master hereinafter referred to as EDBPM in 1964.
4305 of 2000 in the High Court of Patna for payment of his dues.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated May 15, 2006, passed by the High Court of Jharkhant at Ranchi in Writ Petition S No.
4784 of 2005.
The appellant, therefore, filed Original Application No.
