Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 410 (PAT)

Rajeshwar Paswan v. Union of India

2012-03-06

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, VIKASH JAIN

body2012
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Department of Posts. 2. The impugned order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dated 2nd June, 2011 passed in O.A. No. 835 of 2005 (Annexure-12) discloses that all the grounds on which the petitioner challenged the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were noted in detail. Thereafter the Tribunal has considered the relevant materials and has held against the petitioner not only in its own findings but also by adopting reasons and findings given by the appellate authority. This is clear from paragraph 22 of the order of the Tribunal. The reasons of the appellate authority are available in Annexure-10. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry suffered from various illegalities and irregularities. According to him a material witness was summoned, but since he did not turn up, he was not examined by the department. He has further submitted that large number of documents were demanded by the petitioner, but they were not furnished and therefore, the enquiry stands vitiated. He has further submitted that the Tribunal could not have relied upon the order of the appellate authority and it should have given its own findings. 4. The charge against the petitioner is basically of not adopting required caution and safety procedures while paying money against fake Kisan Vikas Patras (K.V.P.). The charge was communicated to the petitioner who participated in the enquiry. After detailed enquiry, on the basis of materials adduced, the enquiry officer found both the charges levelled against the petitioner proved. On that basis an order of punishment was passed so as to reduce his pay scale and withhold increments for a particular period. 5. The appellate authority while considering the appeal of the petitioner exercised powers available to it under the Rules and issued notice for enhancement of the punishment. After considering the detailed defence submitted on behalf of the petitioner, by a reasoned appellate order contained in Annexure-10, an enhanced penalty of dismissal was passed against the petitioner. The Tribunal by the impugned order has refused to interfere with the appellate order. 6. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority failed to consider the defence of the petitioner properly. The Tribunal by the impugned order has refused to interfere with the appellate order. 6. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority failed to consider the defence of the petitioner properly. He further reiterated the grievance noticed earlier relating to alleged violation of principles of natural justice by refusing to supply large number of documents demanded by the petitioner. 7. The law is well settled that this Court interferes with orders of the disciplinary authorities in disciplinary proceedings only if the procedure adopted is unfair and breach of principles of natural justice has caused prejudice or if the order of punishment is based on perverse view when there was no material for holding the charges proved. 8. In the present case the discussions made by the appellate authority shows that a large number of documents were exhibited to support the charges and one witness Sona Lal had also deposed that the Kisan Vikas Patras in question were fake. It is definitely not a case where the findings of the enquiry officer or of the appellate authority can be described as perverse. 9. So far as the grievance with regard to documents is concerned, that was not pressed before the appellate authority which could have gone into the merits of such an important issue. To us also no document was pointed out which could be of significance and whose non-supply could cause prejudice to the petitioner. Unless the petitioner could establish that he was prejudiced in his defence as appearing from over all materials considered by the authorities, such grounds of violation of principles of natural justice in course of enquiry cannot be a ground for interference either by the Tribunal or by this Court. 10. Having gone through the orders of the Tribunal as well as the appellate authority we are not persuaded to interfere in the matter. 11. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed.