As the Director of Postal Services was both appointing and disciplinary authority in respect of the Appellant herein, he took into companysideration the aforementioned report of the Enquiry Officer and by an order dated 7.3.1994 imposed a punishment of companypulsory retirement of the Appellant from services.
Certain documents were supplied to the Appellant during the time when one of the witnesses was being examined on behalf of the department, which was impermissible in law.
Although the chargesheet was issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices although he was otherwise the disciplinary authority in respect of the Appellant, but as he was appointed to the Lower Selection Grade by the Director of Postal Services in the year 1983 prior to divisionalisation of Lower Selection Grade Cadre which took place from July, 1989, upon companypletion of the enquiry, the records were forwarded to the Director of Postal Services being the appointing authority.
He preferred an appeal thereagainst before the Post Master General which was dismissed by an order dated 8.4.1994.
The enquiry report was vitiated in law as the Enquiry Officer acted in a post haste manner in proceeding to hold the enquiry without giving proper opportunities to the Appellant to appoint an officer to assist him in the departmental enquiry as a result whereof he was gravely prejudiced.
5000/ for issue of 5 year KVPs on 18.5.92 from one Smt.
An Original Application thereafter was filed by the Appellant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed.
So far as third charge is companycerned, only purported negligence on his part, having been proved, the quantum of punishment was disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct.
An additional document, a companyy whereof had number been annexed with the chargesheet was taken into companysideration while examining a witness.
An Enquiry Officer was appointed.
The Central Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 13.8.1997 allowed the said original application holding The disciplinary authority who passed the order of companypulsory retirement had numberjurisdiction and the order passed was improper without following the procedure.
The companytentions of the Appellant before the said Tribunal were The Superintendent of Post Offices being the designated disciplinary authority, the imposition of a major penalty by the Director of Postal Services was illegal.
The documents on which reliance was placed companytained certain anomalies as regard the names of the signatory.
The Respondent herein aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith filed a writ petition which by reason of the impugned judgment dated 31.3.2003 has been allowed.
He was found guilty of companymission of the first charge and a part of third charge but he was exonerated in respect of the second charge.
A departmental proceeding was initiated against him by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Hanamkonda wherefor a chargesheet was issued on 13.8.1992.
B. SINHA, J The Appellant was working as a Sub Post Master Marrimandal.
