Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 89 (GAU)

PHULESWAR NATH v. UNION OF INDIA

2015-01-30

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2015
JUDGMENT Heard Ms. E Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. I Hussain, learned CGC for the respondents. Petitioner’s case is that he had joined the Department of Posts on 7.10.65 and continued in service for 35 years till he was dismissed vide order dated 10.2.99 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Sibsagar Division, Jorhat after initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against him for misappropriation of money on four occasions wherein the charges against the petitioner had been proved. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director of Postal Service, Assam Region. However, the appeal was dismissed vide Memo dated 29.9.99. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench (for short, CAT) vide O.A. No. 328/2001 for setting aside the order dated 10.2.99. The CAT while disposing of O.A. No. 328/2001, set aside the order dated 29.9.99 with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the petitioner’s appeal on merits in terms of Rule 27 (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-Rule (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules,1965. The petitioner’s representation on the basis of the CAT order dated 11.4.2002 was rejected by the appellate authority which upheld the order of dismissal dated 10.2.99. The petitioner has also submitted that Police Case No. 540/2008 u/s 409 IPC was initiated against him which was, however, dismissed by the CJM, Sivasagar vide order dated 4.12.2006. The petitioner thereafter made a representation before the respondents to commute the punishment of dismissal to one of compulsory retirement/ removal with terminal benefits which was, however, rejected by the respondents. The petitioner was thereafter paid a sum of Rs. 1,319/- only as GPF withdrawal vide order dated 18.9.2008 overlooking his long and continuous service of 35 years in the Department. The petitioner also submits that the respondents have recovered an amount of Rs. 10,400/- the alleged misappropriated amount from the petitioner’s pensionary benefits. Thus, the petitioner has prayed in this writ petition for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 10.2.99 and 29.9.99 passed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on the ground that the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and to substitute the order of dismissal by one of compulsory retirement considering 35 long years of service rendered by him. Mr. 4 and 5 on the ground that the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and to substitute the order of dismissal by one of compulsory retirement considering 35 long years of service rendered by him. Mr. I Hussain, learned CGC appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the recoveries made from the petitioner is not related to the instant case and the said recoveries were pertaining to recovery of Rs. 5000/- made from the petitioner in connection with fraud at Demow Post Office, Jorhat. The respondents’ counsel has also stated that the petitioner had been punished on several occasions for committing fraud which are reflected in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents. The respondents’ counsel has also stated that mere acquittal from a criminal case does not mean that he can claim the same result in a departmental proceeding in respect of the allegations which are found to be correct and proved. Upon hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that there is no allegation made by the petitioner with regard to the decision making process undertaken by the respondents or whether the departmental proceedings suffered from any infirmity. The petitioner has basically, on humanitarian grounds, asked for substitution of the order of dismissal by one of compulsory retirement stating that some recoveries have been made from him. This Court on consideration of the prayer of the petitioner finds it difficult to accede to the same as there is no challenge made either to the disciplinary proceedings or the decision making process of the respondents. There being no denial as to the guilt of the petitioner in the present case, this Court is not in a position to substitute the order of dismissal by one of compulsory retirement without any basis whatsoever. This writ petition is accordingly found to be devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No cost.