on. 'V
. ADA &
Bafialkot
IN mg HIGH COURT or?
CIRCUIT BENCH
PR1-3sE1§I'!§ " : AL % %
DATED THIS THE 26'5fDAY LOF
THE HONBLE MR. K;sREED;1AIé RAO
THE HON'BL}E;:MR. 'Ié;s1§§;'1s;:¢ivAsE GOWDA
(S-KAT)
of Post Offices,
0/ o the Supcm'11te:1d::nt..«of Post Ofliccs,
Bageiko Divisign,' '
Siipe£h1Post Ofiices,
'B.idJar& })§,vi$i0rt,' V ~
Bidai'.
. cf Services,
---- Region,
--- 580 001.
Péist Master Genet
Department of Post, § L_ j
New Delhi. " 7**IV,Z7.¢;N
(By Sri RS. Sidhapurkar, Adv.,)
AND:
Sri Basavaraj Swamy
S/0 Dhulayya Swamy, T
Aged 36 years, " v_ V'
Earlicrworking a$"E_I)Da]MC,:: -
At Post,
Bidar E)istI'i<:__t.* " ...Respondcnt
{By Sri .lE?%itfl,' for Respondent)
This quash the order of the Central
Admi11:§;$t1'ative 'i;';#i1)una1, Banglore Bench, Bangalore passed
{€0,352/2005~----~éated 29.08.2006 vide An11exure~A, in
'V.Vtt1e'z:ixt::1:V:t1s§'cs3i1£:cs of the case.
._ on for orders this day, K.SREEDHAR
: VV RAO'. dglivefigfcd the fo1Iowing:--
JUDGMENT
v Siddapurkar, learned counsel takes notice for the
.
2. The fact reveals that the respendentggaej a i»
Extra Depaiimental Delivery Agent i”
was entrusted with the Work .:jf-
the payed? ..’I’he Iespondent reporie’Lie:t;’1et tiie is not
available. The Branch 191.05. It is feund
that the pays-ear tr}.-e’.M.Q;’ the branch
post master payment and
misappropriated’ charged that the
responderit’ the branch pest master
in showing the amount. The enquiry is
__i}’e{itieIier…_£iiI~ected that the respondent is net
eiigiiiéie 1:9″ -for the exaxninajion of post-master for a
ief The Revisional authority suo–mot:o
_ 4e:’xercised~~ and after scrutiny removed the respondent
* eie«A_.post.: ef EDDA.
it The respondent filed an application before CAT. It was
that imposition of penalty by the Revisienal autherity is
bad in law and made observation that 2*”? petitioner is at
liberty te reconsider the case 01″ respondent and pass fresh
‘*9!
orders» in acmrdancfi with Law in the light of ‘
made in the order. The ” ‘ ; a
order have filed this petition.
On thorough c0nsideratio11V’VL4L’t2fv 9 facts ” we
find that the order of CAT np’%k%ws;y o£1ei:c:s» the 1mm intextstxg
of the petitioners. ThercfGr:{, we to interfere
with the order Qf . Z:
Acco tr_Iing1y’,
%%%%% Judge
Sdl-
Iuclge