Full Judgment
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REVIEW PETITION NO. 200020 OF 2021 BETWEEN: NAGAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGE 37 YEARS, OCC.EX-GRAMEEN DAK SEVA BRANCH POST MASTER, R/O SAVANTHIGERE VILLAGE, DEODURGA TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT-582118. …PETITIONER Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI (BY SRI. GANESH SUBHASHCHANDRA KALBURGI, ADVOCATE) Location: HIGH COURT OF AND: KARNATAKA
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110001
2. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL NORTH KARNATAKA REGION, DHARWAD 580001
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES RAICHUR DIVISION, -2- RAICHUR-585102 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SUDHIR SINGH VIJAPUR., DSGI) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED U/S 114 OF CPC R/W
ORDER 47 RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC AS NOTED IN THE
EXAMINATION REPORT FOR RECTIFICATION OF DEFECTS, THOUGH SIX WEEKS OR 42 DAYS ARE LAPSED, AS PER RULE 17 OF CHAPTER XII OF THE HIGH COURT ACT AND RULES, THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER HAS NOT COMPLIED THE OFFICE OBJECTIONS AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) The petitioner in W.P.No.200936/2019 has filed this
review petition on the ground that this Court has failed to consider the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, wherein the Investigating Officer held that the charges alleged against the review petitioner are not proved. It is contended that this Court has upheld the findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had taken note of an
-3- admission said to have been made by the review petitioner. It is contended that the confession statement of the review petitioner will have no importance in the eye of law as the statement was obtained under threat and coercion. It is also sought to be contended that a death
certificate was produced by the grandson of Smt.Nagamma to whom the review petitioner herein was required to have paid the Money Order. As per the death certificate, Smt.Nagamma had expired on 21.09.2004. During the course of the investigation, the grandson of Smt.Nagamma had tendered oral evidence that there is an another death certificate showing the date of death as 20.12.2009. It was also admitted by the family members of Smt.Nagamma that the Money Order was paid to
Smt.Nagamma and that she had received it. Learned Counsel for the review petitioner would therefore submit that the orders passed by this Court will require a review.
2. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, on the other hand, appearing on behalf of the respondents, would -4- submit that both the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as this Court has taken into consideration all the
relevant information including the fact that the Investigating Officer had held that the charges are not proved. The Tribunal as well as this Court further noticed that the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to reject the report of the Investigating Officer and proceeded to consider the allegations made against the review petitioner and on the basis of the evidence available on record, came to a conclusion that the charges against the review petitioner have been proved. Opportunity has been given
to the review petitioner in accordance with law. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India therefore submits that no ground for review has been made out by the review petitioner.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and perused the petition papers. -5-
4. There is a delay of 09 days in filing the review petition. The reasons for the delay are accepted and the delay is condoned while allowing the I.A.No.1/2024.
5. However, having regard to the submissions made
by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we find that the ground sought to be made out by the review petitioner will not constitute legally tenable ground for reviewing the
order. The contentions sought to be made on behalf of the review petitioner that this Court had not taken note of the fact that the Investigating Officer had found that the charges against the review petitioner were not proved, is incorrect, since in paragraph No.2 of the order, this Court has taken note of all the information including the fact that the Investigating Officer had held that the charges were not proved.
6. This Court also took note of the fact that the
Superintendent of Post Offices, Raichur Sub-Division, for reasons recorded in the disagreement note has not agreed with the findings given by the Investigating Officer. -6-
Subsequently, after issuing a notice and obtaining the reply of the review petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority came to a conclusion that the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be accepted and therefore, proceed to pass necessary orders and removed the review petitioner from service from 20.10.2014. The review petitioner has been
out of service from 20.10.2014 and the Central Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the petition filed by the review petitioner on considering all the grounds raised by the review petitioner.
7. We are therefore of the opinion that there is no merit in the review petition. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE DL CT: JL