AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jayant Patel, J.—The Petitioner by this petition challenges the order passed by the Tribunal dated 30.09.2010 in O.A. No. 9 of 2010 whereby the Tribunal has quashed and set-aside the show-cause notice and the final order for imposition of the punishment of removal from service, and it is further directed that the original applicant be reinstated in service forthwith with arrears of pay and allowances between the date of his removal and the reinstatement.
Heard Mr. Shastri, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Respondent.
It is undisputed position that before imposing major punishment of removal from service to the Respondent herein, no inquiry whatsoever has been held. It is also undisputed position that the matter was at the stage of issuance of chargesheet and reply and the disciplinary authority had imposed the punishment of debarring the Respondent from appearing in the examination for promotion for the post of Postman for the period for three years. At that stage also, no inquiry was held whatsoever, but the disciplinary authority acted on the reply submitted by the Respondent and considered that it was a bonafide mistake and the lenient view was required to be taken. The notice of enhancement of the penalty was imposed upon the Respondent by the revisional authority, and without considering the aspect that no regular departmental inquiry was held before imposition of punishment, the punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority, the revisional authority had imposed straightway the punishment of dismissal from service. In our view, if the departmental inquiry was not held at all before imposition of the major punishment of removal from service, the order of enhancement of punishment for removal of service could not be sustained and, therefore, Tribunal cannot be said as having committed any error, which may call for interference by this Court.
The attempt was made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to contend that there was admission on the part of the Respondent that he did not deposit the amount and, therefore, the inquiry was not required to be held.
In our view, such submission is at a wrong premise, inasmuch as non-depositing of the amount at the relevant point of time is admitted, but it has been stated as by bonafide and in the subsequent period the said amount has already been deposited. Therefore, the question may also be required to be examined as to whether it was really a misappropriation or a mere omission in bonafide. Even on that aspect also, the inquiry was required to be held, but has not been held. Under these circumstances, the attempt to maintain the order for removal from service cannot be countenanced.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that the show-cause notice for enhancement of the penalty could not have been quashed by the Tribunal. As such, the show-cause notice could be said as having merged with the final order of the revisional authority whereby the Respondent has been removed from service. If the Tribunal has quashed the final order, the consequence would be same as that of quashing the initiation of the action for imposition of the major penalty of removal from service. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted.
In view of the above, we find that no case is made out for interference to the ultimate decision of the Tribunal. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondent shall be reinstated in service and the time be extended for such purpose.
We find that considering the facts and circumstances, as per the order passed by the Tribunal, the reinstatement and other consequential benefit shall be effected within two weeks from today. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.