Dismissed

Union of India v. Mr. Adisal Meena S/O Bodan Lal Meena

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2023CW/1766/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226 against a Central Administrative Tribunal order setting aside a minor departmental penalty was dismissed. The Court held there was no jurisdiction error to interfere, noting the charge sheet was issued just before retirement.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the Tribunal order setting aside the minor penalty was dismissed.

Union of India Vs Mr. Adisal Meena S/O Bodan Lal… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1766/2023

¶3

Union Of India, Through The Secretary, To The Govt. Of India, Department Of Posts, Dak Bhawan Sansad Marg, New Delhi.

¶4

Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur.

¶5

Superintendent Of Post Offices, Alwar Division, Alwar.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Adisal Meena S/o Bodan Lal Meena, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village And Post Rajpur, Teh. Rajgarh, District Alwar, Presently Superannuated as L.S.G. P.A. On 30.9.2011 From Alwar H.O.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

04/09/2023

¶14

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, whereby, the order of minor penalty imposed on the respondent-employee has been set aside.

¶15

Learned counsel for Union of India would submit that the view taken by the Tribunal that the respondent-employee was not supplied with the crucial and material documents which were made a basis to initiate departmental inquiry and hold him guilty, is without proper appreciation of material on record. He would submit that prior to initiation of departmental inquiry, a preliminary inquiry was held wherein statement of respondent was recorded and at that time, the records were shown to him. Therefore, non-supply of the documents during the regular departmental inquiry would not vitiate enquiry. He

¶16

(2 of 2) [CW-1766/2023]

¶17

would next submit that the Tribunal’s assumption that the loss is occasioned is also not correct. Because of the negligence on the part of the respondent in failing to carry out proper tallying of signature, the bank suffered loss.

¶18

We find that the learned Tribunal has interfered with the order of punishment taking into consideration that in respect of a matter of alleged misconduct in the year 2007, at the fag end of service, just before retirement, charge-sheet was issued to respondent-employee. The Tribunal also found that one of the most crucial and important documentary evidence which was made basis for holding the respondent guilty was not supplied to the respondent-employee. It is also on record that he was not even allowed to inspect the documents during the course of inquiry. Present is not a case where the documents could be said to be so voluminous so as to say that it was not possible to supply copy thereof. The Tribunal has taken a view that non-supply of the document during the course of inquiry vitiated the same.

¶19

In our considered view, the finding recorded by the Tribunal does not suffer from error of jurisdiction so as to warrant interference in the present case in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, particular by taking into consideration that initiation of charge-sheet was just before retirement and even according to the respondent, it is not a case of major misconduct.

¶20

Therefore, the petition is dismissed.

¶21

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶22

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

¶23

Mohita /5

Union of India v. Mr. Adisal Meena S/O Bodan Lal Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Mr. Adisal Meena S/O Bodan Lal Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner, Department of Excise Vs M/S Shri Salasar Transport Company

Manoj Sharma S/O Late Shri Rameshwar Dayal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishna Das Agrawal Son of Shri Ranchod Das Agrawal Vs Income Tax Department

State of Rajasthan Vs Dr Ramnarayan Jha S/O Shri Ratikant Jha

Ashok Kumar Agarwal S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Vs Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investments Corporation Limited

M/S. Eternal Heart Care Centre and Research Institute Private Limited Vs the State of Rajasthan