A V MOHAL Vs. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE
LAWS(SC)-1990-12-39
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on December 06,1990

A.V.MOHAL Appellant
VERSUS
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

P NATARAJAN VS. COMMISSIONER H R [LAWS(MAD)-2011-8-410] [REFERRED TO]
N. PURUSHOTHAMAN VS. OFFICER COMMANDING [LAWS(KER)-1992-2-64] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH SONI & ORS. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2007-4-119] [REFERRED TO]
PAWANT KUMAR GUPTA VS. MANAGING COMMITTEE OF S.D. MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA, NARWANA [LAWS(P&H)-2002-1-132] [REFERRED]
BASAB BIJOY BHATTACHARJEE VS. GAUHATI HIGH COURT [LAWS(GAU)-2017-9-3] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Kuldip Singh, J. - (1.)A. V. Mohal, a clerk serving in the Posts and Telegraphs Department, was charge-sheeted on three counts. It was alleged that he did not observe departmental rules and orders, disobeyed the orders of the higher authorities and behaved with the Sub-Postmaster and his colleagues in a manner which was unbecoming of a Government servant. Departmental inquiry under the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was held and ultimately he was removed from service by an order dated April 11, 1972. After exhausting the departmental remedies he challenged the order by way of writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the Nagpur Branch of the Bombay High Court.
(2.)The challenged to the order of removal before the High Court was on the following grounds:
1. The subsistence allowance was not paid during the period of suspension from Dec. 12, 1968 to Nov. 26, 1971. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Ghanshyam Das Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1973 SC 1183 it was contended that the non payment of subsistence allowance resulted in denial of reasonable opportunity to him, thereby vitiating the order of removal.

2. The charge-sheet served on him was vague and as such he was denied the opportunity to defend himself.

3. Since he could not present himself before the Inquiry Officer due to paucity of funds, it was incumbent on the enquiry Officer to have summoned the person deputed to represent him at the enquiry.

4. The punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

(3.)The High Court rejected all the contentions and dismissed the writ petition. On the first point the High Court held that under sub-rule (2) of Rule 53 of the Fundamental Rules no payment in respect of subsistence allowance during suspension period can be made unless the Government servant furnishes a certificate to the effect that he was not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation and since A. V. Mohal did not submit the said certificate, he was rightly denied the subsistence allowance. The High Court also rejected the other three contentions being without any substance. This appeal via special leave petition is against the judgment of the High Court.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.