Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 448 (GAU)

HALIRAM BASUMATARY v. UNION OF INDIA

2017-04-17

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2017
Ajit Singh, J. 1. Heard on admission. 2. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 6.4.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, whereby it has dismissed petitioner’s OA No.040/00231/2014. 3. The petitioner was posted as Gramin Dak Sevok Branch Postmaster at Jalakiabori under the Respondents. On 8.8.2012, during inspection by the Inspector of Posts, Morigaon Sub-Division, the petitioner could not produce cash of Rs.20,387/- . The petitioner was, therefore, served with a charge-sheet on 11.1.2013. After receiving the charge-sheet, the petitioner deposited the amount on 16.1.2013. The Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report dated 18.1.2013 found the petitioner guilty of the charge which was also communicated to him on the same date. The petitioner in his statement of defence dated 25.3.2013 admitted the wrong committed by him by stating that he had used the amount for his personal work and he would not repeat the mistake in future. The disciplinary authority, having regard to the serious misconduct committed by the petitioner, vide order dated 28.3.2013, imposed a major penalty of removal from service with immediate effect. Later, the petitioner’s departmental appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed OA No.040/00231/2014 before the Tribunal, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. 4. The petitioner had admittedly misappropriated Rs.20,387/- which is a serious misconduct on his part. And, as seen above, he deposited that amount only when he was served with a charge-sheet. The petitioner had used the misappropriated amount for his personal work and refunded the same after 6 (six) months and that too, when he was charge-sheeted. His contention that he had used the amount for some urgent personal work is apparently an afterthought. He having lost the trust of his employer, particularly in financial matter, in our considered opinion, has rightly been removed from service. The petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed summarily.