JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 24.11.2000 as well as the order dated 16.4.2001 (Annnexures-9A and 9B to the writ petition) passed by the Superintendent of Post Office, Budaun Mandal, Budaun and Director Postal Services, Bareilly Region, Bareilly respectively. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the orders and judgments dated 7.12.2006 and dated 26.3.2007 (Annexures-9C and 9D to the writ petition) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CAT’) in Original Application No. 637 of 2001, Shahzadey Khan v. The Union of India and another and in Review Application No. 7 of 2007 for review of the judgment and order dated 7.12.2006 aforesaid. He has also prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits from the date of his removal from service. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Branch Post Master at Garhi Bichola Post Office on 7.4.1993. He had received money order No. 3671/43 dated 28.11.1998 for Rs. 1500/- payable to Sri Chunni son of Sri Thakuri village Saifullaganj Post Office Garhi Bichola, Budaun duly entered in Bo Slip dated 8.12.1998 from Islamnagar SO alongwith cash for effecting the payment to the payee but the said Shahzadey Khan did not give written information to the payee through EDDA and himself made the forged payment of said money order whereas the payee of the said money order had already expired three years back from the date of forged payment of money order. The petitioner was proceeded against under Rule 8 of GDS (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. Thereupon, the Superintendent of Post Offices Budaun vide his order dated 29.6.2000 appointed one Sri B.P. Singh, Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post Offices, Budaun as Inquiry Officer. After conducting enquiry, report was submitted by him to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Budaun who vide his order dated 24.11.2000 imposed punishment upon the petitioner by debarring his promotion for three years. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Revision under Rule 16 of EDA (Conduct and Service) Rules 1964 before respondent No. 2, Director Postal Services, Bareilly. After conducting enquiry, report was submitted by him to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Budaun who vide his order dated 24.11.2000 imposed punishment upon the petitioner by debarring his promotion for three years. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Revision under Rule 16 of EDA (Conduct and Service) Rules 1964 before respondent No. 2, Director Postal Services, Bareilly. The Revisional Authority after going through the the record enhanced the punishment vide his order dated 17.4.2001 to removal from service on the ground that it was proved in the disciplinary proceedings that the petitioner had allegedly paid the money order to a wrong person other than the actual payee who had died three years earlier. 5. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the CAT by means of O.A. No. 637 of 2001, Shahzadey Khan v. The Union of India and another, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 7.12.2006, hence the instant writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted his claim before the Post Master General alongwith Death Certificate stating in the application that he has also deposited Rs. 1500/- in the Post Office but he was not heard by him in person and that he had not committed any embezzlement as such no opportunity of hearing having been afforded to the petitioner in the enquiry, it is in violation of the principles of natural justice as such the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has credited the value of forged payment of money order made by him in UCR, voluntarily. From this act of the petitioner it is clearly established that he himself had mis-appropriated the Government money by stating that payment of money order was inadvertently made to a wrong person. The charges were found to be proved against the petitioner after he was afforded opportunity of hearing in the enquiry as well as in revision before the Revisional Authority. 8. He also submits that while enhancing the punishment,the Revisional authority has rightly observed that since the integrity of the petitioner was involved in the case and the charges stood proved it would not be in the public interest to retain him in service which has been confirmed by the CAT, hence there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the respondent. 9. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it appears that the amount of Rs. 1500/- of money order was mis-appropriated by the petitioner showing it to have been paid to the payee on a bogus receipt who had expired 3 years back. 10. In so far as the contention of the petitioner that the money was paid to the wife of the actual payee is concerned, she was in hospital and allegedly the payment was made to her in presence of two witnesses, during the course of enquiry. Suffice is to say that the petitioner failed to produce any witness or even the person to whom the money is said to have been paid without verification. The Enquiry as well as the disciplinary and Revisional proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and at no point of time these proceedings were vitiated by bias or by denial of reasonable opportunity of defence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders, hence no interference is required by this Court. 11. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ——————