(Oral)
K. Elango, Judicial Member
This application has been filed under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:
âi) To call for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to his order of suspension which is made in Memo No. F1/3/11-12 dated 17.08.2011 and the order of the 1st respondent which is made in Memo No. VIG/13-04/11-12 dated 01.03.2012 and set aside the same consequent to
ii) direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service with all attendant benefits;
2. According to the applicant he was orally asked by the staff of Savings Bank Branch Dindugal to credit a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards minus balance in SB account No. 267097 of Reddiar Chathram SO. The applicant identified the depositor and recovered the minus balance of Rs. 30,000/- on 25.06.2011 and sent a detailed report. The 2nd respondent directed the applicant to appear before the Inspector of Post Dindugal and to give his statement regarding minus balance in SB Account No.267097 of Reddiar Chatram SO. The applicant states that he had already submitted his statement on 22.06.2011. The applicant further states he also given statements on 05.09.2011 and 24.11.2011. The applicant submits that the Inspector Posts threatens him that he will reduce the subsistence allowance if he did not write the dictation of the Inspector of Posts. It is further submitted by the applicant that his suspension was not reviewed after 90 days as per the CCS (CCA) Rules,1965. The applicant submits that he has not committed any act warranting suspension. Hence he prayed for the relief as quoted above.
3. Upon notice, the respondents have entered appearance and filed a detailed reply denying the allegations made against them except those which are admitted based on record. The respondents have contended that the applicant has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in Savings Bank Accounts. Hence an inquiry was ordered. The respondents averred in the reply that the applicant did not cooperate in the inquiry and he did not submit any statement before Inspector of Posts on 05.09.2011 and 24.11.2011 and therefore he was threatened that subsistence allowance will be reduced. It is further submitted by the respondents that the suspension was reviewed regularly before the expiry of every 90 days. It is also stated that as there is possible chance of tampering the records and evidence in his official capacity he could be reinstated. The respondents have submitted that the delay in issuing the charge sheet was due to non cooperation of the applicant in the inquiry. In view of the above position, the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the O.A.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused documents carefully. We have also given our careful consideration of the submissions made during the course of hearing.
5. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the respondents have reviewed the suspension periodically before expiry of 90 days each time. However, they have issued the charge sheet only on 16.03.2013. The respondents have made a vague averment in the reply that the applicant did not cooperate in the inquiry and hence the issuance of charge sheet was delayed. However, no detail was given as to how the applicant did not cooperate in the inquiry.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant and thereafter continue with the inquiry. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant forth with. The applicant is directed to cooperate with the department during the inquiry. The respondents are directed to complete the inquiry against the applicant within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. O.A is ordered in the above terms. No costs.