A. SUDHAKAR versus POST MASTER GENERAL, HYDERABAD AND ANR

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 373 · Decided: 24-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A.SUDHAKAR 
A 
v. 
POST MASTER GENERAL, HYDERABAD AND ANR 
MARCH 24, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 
1950-Article 311-Complaint of 
misappropriation of money temporarily by delinquent employee-
Departmental enquiry initiated against the employee-Enquiry Officer found C 
the employee guilty of the offence-Director of Postal Services imposed a 
punishment of compulsory retirement-Petition before Central Administrative 
Tribunal by the employee contending that the Director had no jurisdiction 
to impose punishment; and that the quantum of punishment is disproportionate 
to the offence-Tribunal allowed the Petition of the employee-High Court 
reversed the judgment of the Tribunal in Writ Petition preferred by D 
respondents-Correctness of-Held, on law, a higher authority can act as a 
disciplinary authority so long as the delinquent employee is not deprived of 
a statutory right of appeal-On facts, the employee preferred an appeal 
before Post Master General and hence the employee was not prejudiced-
Temporary defalcation of amount was sufficient for the disciplinary authority E 
to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the employee-
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965. 
A departmental enquiry was initiated against appellant by 
Superintendent of Post Offices on a complaint of misappropriation of 
money .given by complainant for purchase of a Kisan Vikas Patra. Enquiry p 
Officer found the appellant guilty of commission of the charges. Director 
of Postal Services, who was both appointing and disciplinary authority, 
considered the Enquiry Report and imposed a punishment of compulsory 
retirement of the appellant from the services. The appeal preferred by the 
appellant before respondent-Post Master General was dismissed. The 
appellant filed an Original Application before Central Administrative Tribunal G 
which was allowed. The High Court in Writ Petition preferred by the 
respondents, reversed the judgment of the Tribunal. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the respondent 
373 
H 
374 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 3 S.C.R. 
A refused to grant time prayed for appointing a government officer to assist 
him in the case and thus was gravely prejudiced; that a document was not 
supplied to him which was taken in evidence when the main witness was 
examined during the course of the enquiry and this was contrary to Rules 
14(11) and 14(15) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and 
Appeal) Rules 1965; that the identity of the complainant had not been 
B conclusively determined since the documents contained certain anomalies as 
regard the names of the signatory and thus the entire disciplinary proceedings 
must be held to have been vitiated; and that the quantum of punishment was 
disproportionate. 
C 
The respondent contended that the Director of Postal Services was the 
appointing authority and hence no illegality has been committed by his acting 
as a disciplinary authority; that the appellant misappropriated money given 
to by the complainant for obtaining a Kisan Vikas Patra; that a xerox copy of 
the document was supplied to the appellant during the course of enquiry since 
the appellant merely asked for inspection of the original document; that the 
D appellant never made a complaint at that point of time that the document should 
have been supplied along with the show-cause notice; and that the quantum of 
punishment cannot be said to be excessive. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1. Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India puts an embargo 
upon passing of an order of dismissa~ removal or reduction of rank in services 
by an authority below the rank of the appointing authority. There does not 
appear to be an embargo in terms of the provision that a higher authority 
would not act as a disciplinary authority. The appellant has not been deprived 
F of an opportunity of preferring an appeal against the order of the Director of 
Postal Services. He admittedly preferred an appeal before the Post Master 
General which was duly considered. 1t would be obligatory on the part of the 
delinquent officer to show prejudice. A notification placed by the respondents 
shows that the Director of Postal Services was the appointing/disciplinary 
authority in respect of the officials who were promoted to the Lower Selection 
G Grade Cadre prior to division of the Cadre. Hence the Director of Post

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.