om:31-cl-2018-march — In these two OAs, the main charge is misappropriation of public money deposited in the Post Office. In the first case of O.A. No. 412/2012, the Tribunal found that the Applicant is found guilty. But the final verdict is reserved on the decision of the O.A. No. 320/2012. The Applicant in O.A. No. 320/2012, the punishment of removal from service by the Disciplinary Authorities was upheld. But even though the Applicant is found guilty in O.A. No. 412/2012, the decision of the depa

In these two OAs, the main charge is misappropriation of public money deposited in the Post Office. In the first case of O.A. No. 412/2012, the Tribunal found that the Applicant is found guilty. But the final verdict is reserved on the decision of the O.A. No. 320/2012. The Applicant in O.A. No. 320/2012, the punishment of removal from service by the Disciplinary Authorities was upheld. But even though the Applicant is found guilty in O.A. No. 412/2012, the decision of the departmental authorities were upheld and hence the Applicants in O.A. No. 412/2012 are not eligible for reinstatement — This chunk is discussing the case O.A. No. 320/2012, where the applicant was charged with misconduct similar to that in O.A. No. 412/2012. The applicant was removed from service based on these charge... — Facts: These two OAs are disposed of by a common judgment as the charge-sheets issued to the Applicants are same or similar; so also relief asked for. As the judgment in these two OAs pertaining to the allegation of is appropriation of public money and such similar case had already been disposed of in number of OAs by the Tribunals, it is considered sufficient to bring out the final decision of these cases. The Tribunal took up the delay in filing the cases after one year of issue of punishments by the departmental authorities. The delay is condoned justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay. The Tribunal first took up the O.A. No. 412/2012 with M.A. No. 270/2012. In this OA, the charges are misappropriation of deposit under fake signature violating Rule 133 (1) and 134 of Branch Post Office Rules of Postal Department. The Tribunal heard both sides in this OA and examined the disciplinary enquiry and punishment of removal of the Applicant. The main question in this case is, whether the Tribunal issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders of disciplinary authorities and the Revisional Authority respectively, dated 20-12-2006, 1-12-2008 and 24-6-2010. Keeping in mind, the earlier decision of Apex Court, this OA is disposed of. It was held: