IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA WRIT PETITION NO.1519/2017 (S-CAT) BETWEEN:
YOGEESH SALIAN, S/O SOMAPPA SALIAN AGED 44 YEARS, EX-GDS MD, PERNAL BO A/W SHIRWA SO-574 116 RESIDING AT AKSHAYA NILAYA KUNTABETTU, POST: BELMANNU – 576 111 KARKALA TALUK (D.K.) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI A.R.HOLLA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA, BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF POSTS DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI – 110 001 2. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL S.K.REGION, BENGALURU – 560 001 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES UDUPI DIVISION, UDUPI – 576 101 4. THE ASST. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES (R) & ADA UDUPI DIVISION, UDUPI – 576 101 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SIJI MALAYIL, CGC [ABSENT]) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2016 PASSED BY THE CAT IN O.A.NO.1395/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION GRANTING THE RELIEF TO THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, H.G.RAMESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 03.02.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, whereby it has dismissed the petitioner’s application in O.A.No.1395/2014.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Counsel for the respondent is absent.
3. Petitioner, who was working in postal department as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Delivery, was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry on four charges, namely, that he failed to pay three money orders of Rs.800/- each and one money order of Rs.400/-. The inquiry officer, on inquiry, held all the four charges proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority, on consideration of the inquiry report, accepted the report of the inquiry officer and removed the petitioner from his engagement as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Delivery with effect from 29.06.2013 i.e. the date of the order of the Disciplinary Authority. It is relevant to refer to the following observations of the Disciplinary Authority in its aforesaid order dated 29.06.2013:
“8. I have gone through the IO,s Report, Submission of the charged GDS on IO’s Report with all the connected records in the case carefully and dispassionately. IO in his report dated 01.04.2013, had held all the four Articles of Charge, i.e., Articles I, II, III & IV as proved. I fully agree with the findings of the IO as per the discussion made above. The charged GDS was given reasonable opportunity to defend himself through out the inquiry. The procedures laid down in rules have been complied with and there is no failure of justice at any stage. The charges framed against the GDS in nonpayment of MOs to the actual payees impinge on the integrity and devotion to duty.
The public are having immense trust in the post office and its employees. Non payment of the due amount to the payees of the MOs is a serious irregularity which cannot be viewed leniently. Such acts tarnish the image of the Department and shake the faith reposed by the members of public in the institution. Continuance of such persons in employment is not desirable in the interest of the public as well as in the interest of the department. In fact continuance of such officials in the Department sends wrong signals. The gravity of the offence merit stringent punishment ”
(Underlining supplied) 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the revisional authority. The Revisional Authority, on a detailed consideration of the matter, by its order dated 11.11.2014 has confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority. Being aggrieved, the petitioner carried the matter to the Central Administrative Tribunal and it has dismissed his application by order dated 03.02.2016 which is impugned herein. The Tribunal, on a detailed consideration of the matter, has affirmed the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Revisional Authority. We find no error in the consideration made by the Tribunal to warrant interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE hkh.