R S SEHGAL Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL POST AND TELEGRAPH
LAWS(DLH)-1983-1-4
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on January 04,1983

R.S.SEHGAL Appellant
VERSUS
DIR.GEN., POST AND TELEGRAPH Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

PANDURANG G ADYALKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1984-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-157] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHAND GUPTA & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2007-1-150] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

S.B. Wad - (1.)In this Writ Petition, which is a third W.P., the petitioner has challenged legality of the departmental proceedings held against him and the order of compulsory retirement passed by the Director General, P&T Deptt. on 1.6.1981. Two earlier petitions filed by the petitioner are CW 477 of 1972 and C.W. 799 of 1981.
(2.)On 24.8.1966 and on 11.9.1966, he allegedly made journey from Pathankot to Gurdaspnr and then from Jullundur to Pathankot and Gurdaspnr. It is alleged that he travelled in first class, without paying first class fare by using his duty card and thereby causing a pecuniary loss of Rs. 14.55 to Government. The petitioner was working as a Superintendent of Post Office in the P&T Deptt. A criminal case was registered against him by the Railway Police. On 25.9.1966 lie was suspended. The criminal proceedings were there after dropped. However, his suspension was continued for a contemplated proceedings. A departmental proceeding u/R 14 of theC.C,S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965 was started against him with a chargesheet on 31.5.1967. On 18.9.1967 the petitioner filed an application with a list of sixty documents, for inspection and production. The petitioner wanted these documents for his defence and for cross-examining the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter on 25.9.19'67, the order of suspension was revoked on the representation of the petitioner. On 19.10.1967 the Enquiry Officer disallowed inspection and production of 42 documents vitully concerned with the case. Enquiry Officer did not assign any reason. This was patently in breach of sub- rule 12 ofR. 14 of the said rules. On 25.6.1969 a notice to show cause was issued by the disciplinary authority as to why the punishment of compulsory retirement should not be awarded to him.
(3.)In reply to show cause notice the petitioner filed a detailed statement of defence comprising of about 140 typed pages. In this statement he pointed out as to how there was no evidence for some charges and as to how the other charges could not be established on the basis of the evidence produced by the depaitment. He also brought to the notice of the disciplinary authority how the entire proceedings were vitiated on account of the fact that vital documents required for his defence and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses were denied to him. He also cited number of rulings of the High Court and Supreme Court in support of his defence. The Chairman, P&T Board rejected the petilioner defence and on 15.11.1969 passed an order compulsurily retiring the petitioner. The petitioner preferred the statutory appeal. The advice of the Union Public Service Commission was sought. The U.P.S.C. advised that the punishment of compulsory retirement was too severe and punishment of reduction in pay by two stages with cumulative effect was adequate, considering the minor default by the petitioner. The appellate authority did not agree and rejected the appeal on 11.4.1972.
;


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