Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1269 (HP)

Rakesh Kumar v. Sr. Superintendent of Post Office

2017-11-20

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order, dated 19th May, 2011, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Circuit Bench at Shimla in Original Application No. 971-HP of 2010, as also order dated 24.09.2015, passed by the learned Tribunal in RA-063/00003/2015, vide which learned Tribunal upheld the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. We have also gone through the orders under challenge as well as the relevant records of the case. 3. We do not find any infirmity with the order, dated 19th May, 2011, passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 971-HP of 2010. In fact a perusal of the order so passed by the learned Tribunal as well as the records demonstrates that after disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner, he did not appear before the Inquiring Authority on 16.04.2003 and made a request for adjournment, which was acceded to by the Inquiring Authority. However, even thereafter he did not appear before the Inquiring Authority nor any explanation for the same was forwarded by him, as a result of which, ex-parte proceedings were held against him by the Inquiring Authority. It is also a matter of record that after the copy of inquiry report was submitted to the present petitioner and he was called upon to submit his response to the same, this was also not done by him. This has also weighed with the learned Tribunal while it dismissed the Original Application so filed by the present petitioner before it. Records demonstrate that the petitioner was engaged as a Driver in the M.M.S. Unit Shimla and while on duty on mail route no. 4 (Shimla-Kalka) on 21.09.2002, he left for Kalka at around 18:30 hours accompanied by one Ramesh Kumar, Peon. While on his way to Kalka, he hit a person with the vehicle being driven by him at Dhori Diwar, Subathoo road and thereafter fled away from the spot. He also left the mail which was handed over to him in the abandoned vehicle. In fact, after hitting the vehicle against a parapet, he abandoned the same about 6 km. before Kalka at Datyar village. He also left the mail which was handed over to him in the abandoned vehicle. In fact, after hitting the vehicle against a parapet, he abandoned the same about 6 km. before Kalka at Datyar village. One tyre of the vehicle was damaged and the vehicle was in fact suspended in air. It was for this act that he was proceeded against by the department, wherein charge levelled against him also included that he had permitted unauthorized person to travel in his vehicle. As despite service, the petitioner after one appearance did not appear before the Inquiring Authority, therefore, ex pate proceedings were held against him. On the basis of the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority inflicted the punishment of removal from service upon the petitioner. Incidentally, the Disciplinary Authority ordered the removal from service of the petitioner vide order, dated 08.12.2003. Appeal was filed after considerable delay. Appellate Authority dismissed his appeal being grossly time barred vide order, dated 04.03.2010. Original Application was filed by the petitioner inter-alia on the grounds that in Criminal Case registered against him under Sections 279, 337 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 181 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he had been acquitted. Learned Tribunal while rejecting the Original Application held that removal from service of the petitioner was not on the ground of registration of criminal case against him, but it was on the basis of departmental inquiry conducted against him, in which he did not even care to participate. 4. In our considered view, keeping in view the factual matrix involved in the case, the orders so passed by the learned Tribunal does not warrant any interference. 5. While exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of departmental proceedings, all that this Court has to see is as to whether the procedure so prescribed for holding inquiry against the delinquent official had been followed and whether the findings returned by the learned Authorities are borne out from the records of the case and the same are not perverse. Now, in the present case, as the petitioner did not participate in the departmental proceedings, he was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte. The order of removal from service passed against him by the Disciplinary Authority was assailed after six years. Now, in the present case, as the petitioner did not participate in the departmental proceedings, he was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte. The order of removal from service passed against him by the Disciplinary Authority was assailed after six years. The appeal was rightly dismissed by the appellate Authority by holding that no appeal could have been entertained after such un-explained delay. In fact, a perusal of the records demonstrate that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is a well reasoned and a well objected order and the same is self explanatory as to the punishment of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner by the said Authority. As far as the order passed by the learned Tribunal is concerned, we find that learned Tribunal has rightly declined to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority on the ground that the petitioner did not choose to participate in the inquiry and further no case was made out for interference, simply because he stood acquitted in criminal case. Findings so returned by the learned Tribunal in arriving at its decision are borne out from the records of the case and the same are thus not perverse. Order vide which the review application has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal is also a self speaking order. Even otherwise, in our considered view, in exercise of its powers of judicial review under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of disciplinary proceedings, this Court is not to act as an appellate Court. Petitioner has not been able to establish in this case that either any procedural infirmity was committed in the course of departmental proceedings or the findings returned by the authorities or the learned Tribunal are perverse and not borne out from the records of the case. 6. Therefore, as there is no merit in the present writ petition, accordingly, while concurring with the findings returned by the learned Tribunal, we dismiss this petition being devoid of any merit. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.