High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the writ petition challenging the quashing of a penalty order. The Court held that since the penalty order was quashed while evidence recording was pending, no infirmity existed in the Tribunal's decision.
Liberty granted to initiate disciplinary proceedings where evidence can be recorded. Penalty order quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ No. 15564/2018
----Petitioners
Versus
Surendra Lal Meena S/o Shri Nathu Ram Meena, Retired Postmaster Grade-II Shastri Circle Udaipur (who earlier remained posted as Postmaster Baran Mukhya Dak Ghar, Distt. Baran) Aged about 60 Years, Resident Of Village and PostDhelana Gumanpura Via Semari, Distt. Udaipur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pukhraj Servi For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
04/12/2018
(2 of 3) [CW-15564/2018]
superiors. Far from providing him subordinate staff, he was ordered to perform the additional work of the post of APM, SBSO, Udaipur by the Post Master on 25.03.2009 which was withdrawn by the competent authority when he protested. The Post Master again issued an order giving an additional work of the post of APM, SBSO, Udaipur to him on 04.08.2009. He protested once again. The Post Master assured that adequate staff would be provided. Adequate staff was not provided. He performed his duties as APM Accounts and did not do any work pertaining to the post of SPM SO.
(3 of 3) [CW-15564/2018]
( (Dr. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ
-Anil/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether quashing of a penalty order under CCS (CCA) Rules without regular enquiry violates principles of natural justice given severe consequences.
Whether the High Court was right in allowing termination of limitation period for recovery due tostay of proceedings.
Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that regular enquiry with evidence recording was necessary for negligence cases involving recovery.
Union Of India
Senior Superintendent Of Post Offices
Director Of Postal Services
Surendra Lal Meena
Praadeep Nandrajog
Pushendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
