JUGLA SHARAN TIWARI DEAD SUBSITUTED SURENDRA KUMAR vs POST UP CIRCLE

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH

Original Application No. 343/2017

st
This, the 01 day of September, 2026

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J),
HON’BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Jugla Saran Tiwari [Dead] substituted by:-
1. Surendra Kumar, S/o- Shri Jugla Saran Tiwari.
2. Virendra Kumar Tiwari, S/o- Shri Jugla Saran Tiwari.
3. Laxmi Kant Tiwari, S/o – Shri Jugla Saran Tiwari.
4. Krishna Kant Tiwari, S/o Shri Jugla Saran Tiwari.
5. Umesh Kumar Tiwari, S/o- Shri Jugla Saran Tiwari
All are resident of Village & post- Retwagandha, District- Gonda.
..Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar.

VERSUS
1. Union of India, through the Chief Post Master General, U.P.
Circle, Lucknow.

2. The Director General, Postal Services, Gorakhpur Region,
Gorakhpur.

3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Gonda Division, Gonda.

…..Respondents
By Advocate: Ms. Prayagmati Gupta.

O R D E R
PER HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J)
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the
respondents and perused the records.

2. Through this Original Application, applicant has prayed for the
following reliefs:
“ 1. To quash the impugned order dated 09.09.2014 and order dated
11.08.2017, contained as Annexure No. A-1 & A-2 to this OA, with all
consequential benefits.

2. To reinstate the applicant with continuity in service, seniority,
promotion and all other attending benefits viz. monetary benefits etc.



Page 1 of 5

3. Any other relief, which this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and
proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.

4. Cost of the present case.”

3. During pendency of this O.A., applicant Jugla Saran Tiwari died,
hence, his legal heirs have been substituted vide order dated
30.07.2024.

4. Tersely put, the case of the deceased applicant is that applicant
was employee of the Respondent Department. He was served a
chargesheet on 03.01.1997 for alleged violation of Rule 17 of EDA
(Conduct and Service) Rules. Inquiry was concluded and report was
submitted on 04.05.1998 holding the applicant guilty of charges.
After considering the inquiry report, disciplinary authority
passed an order on 14.05.1998 imposing the penalty to the effect
debarring the applicant from the departmental promotion for a period
of three years coupled with fine of Rs 2000/-.
The respondent no. 2 on his own motion issued a show cause
notice to the applicant with a view to enhance the penalty. Applicant
submitted detailed representation. On 21.01.1999, respondent no. 2
passed an order removing the applicant from service. Appeal preferred
to the applicant also came to be rejected.
Feeling aggrieved against the punishment order, applicant
preferred O.A. No. 57 of 2000 which was allowed by the Hon‟ble
Tribunal vide judgment dated 30.08.2001. Respondents preferred a
Writ Petition No. 1557 of 2001 which also came to be dismissed by the
Hon‟ble High Court on 08.04.2013.
After dismissal of the writ petition, the competent authority
issued another show cause notice on 09.01.2014, after a gap of about
09 months. Applicant submitted representation but on 09.09.2014,
respondent no. 2 passed an order of enhanced punishment whereby
the applicant was removed from service.
Hence, this O.A.

5. Respondents by filing their counter affidavit have, inter-alia,
stated that applicant was found guilty for misappropriation of public
money and other serious irregularities which is more serious than any
negligent category of act. Further averred that as per liberty granted by
Tribunal in the order dated 30.08.2001 and the judgment of the


Page 2 of 5

Hon‟ble High Court dated 08.04.2013, the applicant was served with a
show cause notice. Applicant submitted his representation on
24.02.2014. Subsequently, Reviewing Authority, i.e. Respondent no. 2
after considering the representation of the applicant has enhanced the
punishment and removed the applicant from service vide order dated
09.09.2014. Appeal was considered by the appellate authority and
rejected vide order dated 11.08.2017. The impugned orders are
reasonable and issued after completion of all due formalities and
procedures laid down with respect to disciplinary proceedings, hence,
OA deserves to be dismissed.

6. Applicant by filing rejoinder affidavit reiterated the averments
made in the Original application. Further stated that reviewing
authority issued show cause notice with predetermined guilt of notion
and just to punish the applicant.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that show cause
notice dated 09.01.2014, which is at pages from 94 to 95 of the
paperbook is not tentative in nature rather Revising Authority has
recorded clear cut findings to modify the punishment and to impose
the penalty of removal from service, hence, revising order is in
violation of the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the matter of
Punjab National Bank and Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported
[1998 (7) SCC 84]. Further submitted that principles of natural
justice have been violated on account of definite findings of
misconduct.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
opposed the aforesaid submissions and argued that in revising order
(Annexure A-1), the word tentatively has been written, hence,
judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the matter of Kunj Bihari Misra
(supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.


9. In Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Bihari Mishra
reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 cited by the learned counsel for the
applicant, Hon‟ble Supreme Court made the following observations:
“The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of
natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof
whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry authority on any
article of charge then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must


Page 3 of 5

record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent
officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of
the inquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the
delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary
authority to accept the favorable conclusion of the inquiry officer. The principles
of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority, which
has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to
the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary
authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.

From the aforesaid extract of the aforecited judgment, it is
manifest that a responsibility is cast upon the revising authority for
recording tentative reasons in case such authority disagrees with the
findings of the enquiry on any article of charge .

10. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition, the facts of the case
are being analyzed and evaluated.

11. In the Annexure A-15, page- 95 of the paper-book, the relevant
portion of disagreement note runs as follows:

“ 4) 2)
( यह कि उऩरोक्त िम ांि (
में किये गये विस्तृत वििेचन िे आध र उक्त ग्र मीण ड ि
1, 3 4 2
सेिि ऩर ऱग ये गये आरोऩ सां० ि ऩूणतः ससद्ध ि आरोऩ सांख्य आांसिि ससद्ध
1, 3, 4
होते हैं । आरोऩ सां०
िे ऩूण रूऩ से ससद्ध ऩ ये ज ने िे ि रण यह स्ऩष्ट होत है
कि श्री जुगऱ िरण तति री िी सत्यतनष्ठ सांदेह स्ऩद हैं तथ ऐसे िमणच री जो सरि री धन
ि दुविणतनयोजन िरने में सांसऱप्त ऩ ये ज ये और जजनिी सत्यतनष्ठ सांदेह स्ऩद है उन्हें
विभ ग में रखन उचचत नहीां है क्यों कि ऐसे ग्र मीण ड ि सेिि जजनिी सत्यतनष्ठ सांदेह स्ऩद
,
हो उन्हें विभ ग में रखिर सेि िरने ि अिसर देन ह तन गिन िो िढ ि देन होग ।

2011 19
अतः ग्र मीण ड ि सेिि ( आचरण एिां तनयोजन) तनयम िऱी िे तनयम िे
अन्तगणत प्रदत्त िजक्तयों ि प्रयोग िरते हुए अधोहस्त ऺरी द्ि र यह ऩ य ज त है कि
10-95-96/1, 14.05. 98
अधीऺि ड िघर गोंड िे दांड देि ऻ ऩन स० एि डी०ऩी ददन ि
द्ि र श्री जुगऱ िरण तति री ि ख ऩोस्टम स्टर रेति गोंड (श्री नगर) जनऩद गोंड िे
1)
विरूद्ध ऩ ररत दांड देि ( विभ गीय प्रोन्नतत से तीन िर्ण ति िांचचत िरने एिां (।।) उनिे
2000/- 10
िेतन से रू िी सम न किरतों में िसूऱी ि दण्ड उनिे विरूद्ध ऱग ये गये एिां
,
ससद्ध ऩ ये गयें ऩर
आरोऩों िे अनुरूऩ एिां ऩय णप्त नहीां है तथ आरोवऩत ग्र मीण ड ि सेिि
ऱग ये गये आरोऩ अत्यन्त गम्भीर किस्म िे है जजसमें भ री दण्ड ि औचचत्य है । ऐसे
ग्र मीण ड ि सेिि िमणच री जो जनत िो धोख देिर सरि री धन िे गबन में सऱप्त है
उसको "सेवा से ननष्कासन" का दण्ड देना ही उचित है। इस कारण श्री जुगऱा शरण नतवारी
"
ग्रा०डा० से० शाखा ऩोस्टमास्टर रेतवागाडा (श्रीनगर) गोण्डा को अधोहस्ताऺरी द्वारा सेवा से
”
ननष्कासन" का दण्ड देना प्रस्ताववत ककया जाता है ।


From perusal of aforesaid extract of the disagreement note dated
09.01.2014, it is evident that revising authority has unequivocally and
explicitly recorded the findings that applicant committed a grave
misconduct, exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner
unbecoming government servant.


Page 4 of 5

In the disagreement note, it has also been mentioned that
proper punishment for the applicant would be removal from service.

12. Thus, from the opinion / disagreement note of the competent
authority, it is evident that applicant is to be removed from service
even after submission of representation, which is against the ratio of
the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the matter of Kunj
Bihari Mishra (supra), hence, impugned punishment order deserves
to be quashed.

13. In view of above, OA is allowed. Impugned orders dated
09.09.2014 and 11.08.2017 are quashed.
The applicant shall be deemed to be in service from the date he
was removed from service, but he shall not be entitled to pay and
allowances for the period he has not been on duty on the principle of
„no work, no pay‟.
However, the punishment awarded to the applicant on
14.05.1998 whereby the applicant was debarred for departmental
promotion for three years coupled with fine of Rs. 2000/- shall
continue against the applicant.
Accordingly, applicant shall be entitled to such other
consequential benefits as are admissible under rules complying with
the punishment order dated 14.05.1998 (Annexure No. A-6, page 49 of
the paper-book).
As applicant has died, hence, respondents are directed to pay all
the retiral dues admissible to the applicant/ the legal heirs as per
rules within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending M.As, if any, also stand disposed of.



(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)

JNS
Digitally signed by
Jay Narayan Singh
Date: 2026.09.03
10:15:58 +05'30'
Jay Narayan
Singh


Page 5 of 5