Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
M Jeevarathinam vs D/O Post on 15 September, 2022
ho lof 18 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA No.310/00889/2018 Dated)S, the Thurs day of September Two Thousand and Twentytwo PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI T. JACOB, MEMBER(A) HON'BLE SHRI LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, MEMBER(J) M. Jeevarathinam, S/o. D. Mohan, ~ aged 42 years, Working as Postal Assistant (Under Suspension) Thiruvettipuram S.0., Tiruvannamalai District. ... Applicant (By Advocate: M/s. M. Gnanasekar) Vs Union of India Rep. by The Post Master General, Chennai City Region, Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002. The Superintendent of Post Office, Tiruvannamalai Division, Tiruvannamalai- 606 601; The Inquiry Officer, Inspector of Posts (Public Grievances), O/o. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Tiruvannamalai Division, Tiruvannamalai- 606 601. (By Advocate: Mr. M. Kishore Kumar) ... Respondents 2 of 18 ORDER
( Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.T.Jacob, Member(A)) The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"a) to set aside the order No. NP FI/IV-1/17-18 dated 28.05.2018 passed by the 2™ respondent and order No. TRL/SB/IO-01/2018/Digs dated 24.4.2018 passed by 3% respondent and order No. VIG/APP/2-04/2018 CCR dated 18.01.2018 passed by first respondent and consequently direct the respondents to enhance the subsistence allowance and permit him to engage Shri P. Loganathan as his defence Assistant in the inquiry against the applicant,
b) and pass such further orders as are necessary to meet the ends of justice;
c) Award exemplary cost and thus render justice."
2. The brief facts of the case submitted by the applicant are as follows:-
The applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant in the respondent department on 07.07.1997 on compassionate grounds. On 17.06.2013 he was transferred from Malaiyur to Akkur in Tiruvannamalai Postal Division. The applicant was holding the post of Sub Post Master. On 06.06.2017, the applicant was abruptly transferred by the 2"* respondent as Postal Assistant, Tiruvettipuram, Sub Post Office. The applicant Joined duty on 07.06.2017 in the transferred place, Tiruvettipuram. All of a sudden, on 29.06.2017 the applicant was placed under suspension with immediate effect by the 2"* respondent and the applicant was directed to submit a proforma that the applicant was not employed elsewhere every month in order to get the benefit of subsistence allowance. On 26.09.2017, the 2" respondent extended the period of
3 of 18 suspension by another three months without any reasons. On 19.01.2018, the 274 respondent communicated an order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the 1* respondent upholding the decision in reducing the payment of subsistence allowance. On 24,4.2018, the request for engagement of Defence Assistant was turned down by the 3" respondent on the ground that the assistant has been debarred from appearing as Defence Assistant. The applicant and his advisor have given several representations to the respondents requesting for to pay the allowances and permit the petitioner to engage the defence assistant. Hence the applicant filed the O.A.
3. The applicant has sought the aforesaid relief, inter alia, on the following grounds:-
a) The order of the 2" respondent is contrary to the procedure contemplated for imposing major penalty. The Sub rule 8(a) of Rule 14 specifically provides that the delinquent may take the assistance of any government servant or even the retired person. The rule never contemplates the number of cases to be handled by the defence assistant in defending the delinquents. In the Official Memorandum dt.
05.02.2003 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India which contemplates that a retired government servant can act as a Defence Assistant in 7 departmental proceedings at a given time.
b) The order of the 2™ respondent in reducing the payment of subsistence allowance by 50% on the ground that the applicant has not cooperated with the preliminary enquiry is farcical and the same is without any justification.
c) The order of the 1* respondent in upholding the order of the 2" respondent shows total lack of application of mind when the rule specifically provides for 4of 18 sayment of 75% of pay and allowances if the suspension period is extended beyond 90 days.
d) The order of the 1% and 2"4 respondents clearly shows that they have already formed an opinion that he has committed the alleged misconduct even before the inquiry officer holds the enquiry which is in the premature stage where not even the documents are yet to be marked. It would be highly inappropriate to hold him guilty of misappropriation of Rs, 6,08,965/- which shows the predetermined mind of the respondents, 4, Respondents have filed a detailed reply statement contesting the OA.
It is submitted that while Shri M. Jeevarathinam, Post Assistant., Tivuvettipuram SO had worked as Sub-Postmaster, Akkur SO from 17.06.2013 to 6.6.2017, one complaint letter dated 24.05.2017 from Shri K. 'Ramanujam, Kunnavalkam village, Akkur addressed to the 24 Respondent and received by the 2™ respondent on 25.5.2017 alleged that he was forced to prematurely close his RD a/c no. 2176495406 standing at Akkur Post Office by the Sub Postmaster, Akkur SO and that the SPM, Akkur SO, had contacted him over phone on 22.5.2017 and requested him to inform the Inquiry Officer that he had received Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on 23.5.2017.
(ii) It is submitted that the enquiry by the Inspector Posts, Vandavasi Sub Division revealed that Shri K. Ramanujam, the complainant had opened this RD account on 18.9.2014, the Denomination being Rs. 2000/- that as per the deposits were made till September 2016 (DLT:- 24.9.2016 and BAT Rs. 50000/-) that this account was prematurely closed on 29.4.2017 by the Sub-Postmaster, Akkur SO for 5 of 18 ERs. 53047/-. The depositor had stated that the Sub-Postmaster, Akkur SO obtained his signature in four [4] withdrawal forms in April 2017 and also obtained his RD Pass Book No. 2176495406 and SB Pass Book No. 2176414131 and that he was not paid any cash. Further, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- were found to have been withdrawn from this Account on 29.4.2017 and 1.5.2017 and the depositor had denied taking payment of these withdrawals. The SB Pass Book alone was returned to depositor on 23.5.2017 when he received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- The RD PB was not returned to Shri K. Ramanujam.
(iii) It is submitted that as the role of Sri M. Jeevarathinam, the applicant, who was working as Sub Postmaster, Akkur SO since 17.06.2013 became suspicious, he was transferred to Tiruvettipuram SO on 7.6.2017 and Cent percent verification of Akkur SO was ordered and the same is underway.
(iv) It is submitted that during the cent per cent verification, many uregularities were detected and three cases of belated credit of SB deposits were reported and non-credit of deposit for Rs. 63,000/- in a 2 year Time Deposit and six cases of closure of Five year Time Deposit accounts without the knowledge of the depositors to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- totalling to Rs. 3,63,000/- came to light.
(v) It is submitted that after considering the enquiry report, the 2"
respondent came to a conclusion, that there existed 'Prima-facie' evidence against the applicant Sri M. Jeevarathinam, his continuance in office, will be against the wider public interest, and in order to prevent tampering of records and evidences, the applicant was placed under suspension on 29.06.2017 by the 2™ respondent vide Memo. No.F1/IV-2/17-18, which came into effect from 30.06.2017 (f/n) It is also
6 of 18 "submitted that as the amount involved was large, the pay and allowances of the applicant from 1.6.2017 to 29.06.2017 was ordered to be withheld and he was sanctioned subsistence allowance as admissible under Rules (@50% of his pay +DA) vide Memo. No. F1/IV-1/17-18 dated 20.07.2017.
(vi) It is submitted that the applicant did not co-operate in the enquiry and refused to give any statement and divulge any information. Details, on which enquiry was held by issuing notice to Sri M. Jeevarathinam, is furnished hereunder:-
Date of j Whether Sri M.) Whether Sri M. Jeevarathinam, applicant Enquiry i Jeevarathinam, effectively participated in the enquiry when 'Applicant, attended thelhe attended.
enquiry or not?
20/07/17 Yes No. The applicant, refused to participate in 2077 Ves the enquiry and refused to give any statments and left the venue of enquiry 08/08/17 Yes 9/8/2017 Did not attend the enquiry 10/08/17 Did not attend the enquiry 04/09/17 Yes No. The applicant, refused to participate in the enquiry and refused to give any statments and left the venue of enquiry.
05/09/17 Did not attend the enquiry 17/04/18 Yes The applicant refused to provide any information on the issue of RD PMC made without the knowledge of the depositor, (vit) Tt is submitted that Subsistence allowance was reviewed on 8.9.2017, show cause notice was issued to the Official and reduced by 50% vide Memo No. FIMV-1/17-18 dated 4.10.2017 with the mention of total amount of frauds so far detected, refusal of the applicant to credit the amount and his refusal to participate in the enquiry/investigation with details. It is submitted that the 2™4 respondent after
7 of 18 _¢ponsidering the representation of the applicant for the show cause notice, observed that Sri M. Jeevarathinam, the applicant did not attend the enquiry wilfully and that the suspension is getting prolonged for the reasons directly attributable to Sri M. Jeevarathinam, the applicant and ordered on 4.10,.2017 for the reduction of the subsistence allowance by 50% with effect from 5.10.2017 until further orders.
(viii) The appeals of Sri M. Jeevarathinam requesting for the (i) release of his withheld pay and allowances (ii) enhancement of his subsistence allowance to 75% and (iii) and revocation of suspension was turned down by the Director, Postal Services, Chennai City Region, Chennai-2, the Appellate Authority, and the orders communicated vide memo No, VIG/APP/2/2-04/2018/CCR dated 18.01.2018 and his Revision Petition dated 5.2.2018 was also turned down by the competent authority and communicated to the 2™ respondent vide Postmaster-General, Chennai City Region, Chennai-2 letter No. VIG/Pet/1-03/2018/CCR dated 21.3.2018 and the 274 respondent informed this to the applicant on 22.3.2018.
(ix) It is submitted that in connection with these frauds, a Criminal case was registered against Sri M. Jeevarathinam, the applicant, at Dusi Police Station on 27.10.2017 under Crime No. 568/2017 under Sections Sec. 417, 420 and 477 of IPC and he was arrested on 10.02.2018 and remanded. He was later enlarged on conditional bail.
(x} It is submitted that Disciplinary action under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was initiated against Sri M. Jeevarathinam, Postal Assistant (under suspension), Tiruvettipuram SO 604 407 by the 2" Respondent vide memo No. FI/TV-1/17-18 dated 15.12.2017 and inquiry officer and the Presenting Officer were 8 of 18 "appointed on 9.2.2018. The applicant denied the charges in the Preliminary hearing held on 23.3.2018 and nominated Sri P. Loganathan, Retired SPM Ambur as his Defence Assistant vide his letter dated 14.3.2018.
(xi) It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer; vide his letter no. TRL/SB/AO- 01/2018/Digs. Dated 24.4.2018 instructed to nominate any other eligible person as Defence Assistant as Sri P. Loganathanm the person nominated by him had already been debarred from appearing as Defence Assistant, During the inquiry held on 27.4.2018 for Inspection of documents, the applicant intimated that he could not inspect the documents without defence assistant and requested the inquiry officer one month time to nominate another Defence Assistant and therefore the inquiry was adjourned without mentioning date. The applicant without nominating another Defence Assistant as intimated by him, had submitted a representation to the 2"
respondent on 9.5.2018. and stated that the Inquiry Officer refused permission vide his letter dated 24.4.2018 to engage Shri Loganathan. The applicant enclosed a letter dated 09.05.2018 of the Defence Assistant and insisted that Sri P. Loganathan, should be permitted to function as his Defence Assistant, in order to afford him reasonable opportunity and to defend his case efficiently and satisfactorily so that he could establish his innocence. It is further submitted that Shri Loganathan, in his representation dated 09.05.2018 while accepting that he had been debarred from appearing as Defence Assistant by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Krishnagiri Division, Krishnagiri, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vellore Division, Vellore 632 001 and by the inquiry officer and Asst. Supdt. Of Post Offices, Arakkonam Sub Division, Arakkonam 631 001, had argued that the decision of the 9 of 18 inquiry officer to debar him was 'Ulogical as there was no order of debarment in Tiruvannamalai Division. The request of the applicant was turned down by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tiruvannamali Division on 28.5.2018. --
(xii) It is submitted that the applicant has filed this OA challenging the direction of the 3 respondent to nominate some other eligible person as Defence Assistant as Shri Loganathan had already been debarred from working as Defence Assistant, the orders of the 24 respondent upholding the decision of the Inquiry Officer in connection with the nomination of the Defence Assistant and the orders said to be issued by the 1° Respondent but actually issued by the Director of Postal Services, Chennai City Region in connection with the reinstatement of the applicant into service and revision of subsistence allowance and request to direct the respondents to enhance the subsistence allowance and permit him to engage Shri P. Loganathan as his Defence Assistant in the inquiry against the applicant .
S. It is submitted that the orders passed by the 2" respondent in Memo No. Fl /iv- 1/17-18 Dated 28.5.2018 the order of the Inquiry Officer, in Lr. No. TRL/SB/IO- 01/2018/Digs dated 24.4.2018 and the order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the Director of Postal Services, Chennai City Region, Chennai-600 002 are legally tenable and valid as per Rules. It is submitted that the attitude taken by the applicant is of complete non-cooperation and he reftsed to participate in the inquiry though he was present at the time of the enquiry on a few occasions and his intention is to prolong the enquiry. The suspension of the applicant is prolonged for the reason attributable directly to him and the order of the 2™ respondent in reducing the subsistence allowance by 50% is fully justified. The amount of non-credits/closure of Time 10 of 18
-deposit/Recurring Deposit accounts without the knowledge of the depositors as on date is Rs. 6,10,262.50/- It is further submitted that major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Ruels, 1965 and Criminal case has already been launched against the applicant. The suspension of the applicant is extended for further period of 180 days from 25.6.2018 to 21.12.2018 as recommended by the Regional Suspension Review Committee on 15.06.2018 in the 3 Review and the same was communicated to the applicant on 18.06.2018. The applicant is trying to prolong the inquiry by falsifying the events for his personal pecuniary gain. The respondents pray for dismissal of the OA as it is devoid of merits and vexatious.
6. It is submitted by the respondents that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held in the case of H.C. Sarin vs Union of India (14 April, 1976 in 1976 AIR 1686 and 1976 SCR 39) that a delinquent has no absolute right of his choice to claim assistance of a particular person unless such right has flown from the relevant statute or rules. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its Judgement dated 4.10.2011, Indian Overseas Bank vs. Indian Overseas Bank Officers... Case No:
Appeal (Civil) 2597 of 1998 Appeal (Civil) 2598 of 1998 Appeal (Civil) 2599 of 1998 held that the Government has every right to restrict number of cases being handled by Defence Officers. Similar observations have been made by the Apex Court in N. Kalindi Vs. Tata Locomotive & Engg Co. Lid . (AIR 960 SC 914), (160) 2 LLJ 228) Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd vs. Workmen (AIR 965 SC 1392, (1965) 1 ULJ 426), Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. vs. Ram Nareshtripathi (1993) 2 SCC 115, 1993 SCC (L&S) 360) and Bharat Petroleum Ltd, Vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union (1999) 1 SCC 626, 1999 SCC (L&S) 361).
11 of 18 «@?. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings and documents of records.
8. The short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether the applicant as a matter of right is entitled to avail the services of an Ex-employee of his choice as' his Defense Assistant in the departmental proceedings?
9. The disciplinary proceeding of central services officers are governed by Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. Engagement of defence assistant by the Charged Officer (CO) is covered under Rule 14(8) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rule, 1965. The Rule 14(8)
(a) provides that:-
"The Government Servant may take the assistance of any other Government Servant posted in any office either at his headquarters of at the place where the inquiry is held, to present the case on his behalf, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose, unless the 'Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner or the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits; Provide that the Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant posted at nay other station, if the inquiring authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, and for reasons to be recorded in writing so permits.
Note: The Government servant shall not take assistance of any other Government servant who has three pending disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to given assistance.
(b) The Government Servant may also taken the assistance of 12 of 18 a retired Government servant to present the case of his behalf subject to such conditions as may be specified by the President from time to time by general or special order in this behalf."
10. The Department of Personnel & Training OM No. 11012/11/2002-Ests, (A) dated 05.02.2003, stipulates the following conditions in the matter of appointment of a retired government as a Defence Assistant:-
"{a) Should have retired from service under the Central Government.
(b) If the retired Government Servant happens to be a legal practitioner also, the conditions prescribed for engaging a legal practitioner as Defence Assistant wil! apply;
(c) Should not have been associated with the case in any manner in his official capacity;
(d) Cannot function as Defence Assistant in more than seven cases at any point of time."
11. The facility of nomination of Defence Assistant, is not an absolute one, it has certain qualifications to be satisfied and in this case the inquiry officer and the 3™ respondent, decided not to accept the nomination of Sri P. Loganathan, Retired Government Servant for the reason that Sri P. Loganathan, the person nominated by the applicant, had already been debarred from appearing as Defence Assistant, due to his false declaration of facts. The said debarment of Sri P. Loganathan by Superintendent of Post Offices, Krishnagiri Division, Krisknagiri 635 001, Superintendent of Post Offices, Vellore Division, Vellore 632 001 and the Inquiry Officer and Asst. Supdt Of Post Offices, Arakkonam Sub Division Arakkonam 631] 001 has been admitted by Sri P. Loganthan himself. The debarment of Sri P. Loganathan is an admitted and undisputed fact and the argument that he had not been 13 of 18 ¢jdebarred in Tiruvannamalai Division, is not based on any Rules/Logic. The decision to debar Sri P. Loganathan is a quasi-judicial decision and therefore is akin to personam, ie enforceable against the person whever he/she is and the decision of the Inquiry Officer was also based on the same equivalence. The Order dated 28.5.2018 of the 2™ respondent is lawful one and as per Department of Personnel & Training OM No. 11012/3/86-Estt (A) dated the 29th April, 1986 such an order of the disciplinary authority will be in the nature of a step-in-aid of the inquriy and no appeal shail lie against that order,
12. While considering the aforesaid issue, few decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the right of the employee to make representation in the Departmental Proceedings are required to be referred to,
a) In the case of Kalindi and Ors (supra), it is observed and held that ordinarily in inquiries before domestic tribunals the person accused of any misconduct conducts his own case and therefore, it is not possible to accept the argument that natural justice ex-facie demands that in the case the enquiries into a chargesheet of misconduct against a workman he should be represented by a member of his Union; though of-course an employer in his discretion can and may allow his employee to avail himself of such assistahce, The dictum of this decision has been subsequently elucidated.
b) In the case of the Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd v. Workmen reported in (1965) 2 SCR 139, after considering its earlier decision in the case of Kxalindri and ors (supra), it is observed and held that there is no per se 14 of 18 right to representation in the departmental proceedings through a representative through own union unless the company by its Standing Order recognized such a right. It is observed that refusal to allow representation by any Union unless the Standing Orders confer that right does not vitiate the proceedings. It is further observed that in holding domestic enquiries, reasonable opportunity should be given to the delinquent employees to meet the charge framed against them and it is desirable that at such an enquiry the employee should be given liberty to represent their case by persons of their choice, if there is no standing order against such a course being adopted and if . there is nothing otherwise objectionable in the said request. It is further observed that denial of such an opportunity cannot be said to be in violation of principles of natural justice.
c) In the case of Cipla Ltd. and Ors (supra), it is observed and held as under:
"13. In N. Kalindi v. Tata Locomotive & Engg. Co Lid, it was held that a worlanan against whom a departmental enquiry is held by the Management has no right to be represented at such enquiry by an outsider, not even by a representative of his Union though the Management may in its discretion allow the employee to avail of such assistance. So also in Dunlop Rubber Company _vs. Workmen, 1965 (2) SCR 139 = AIR 1965 SC 1392 = 1965 (D LILI 426, it was laid down that an employee has no right to be represented in the disciplinary proceedings by another person unless the Service Rules specifically provided for the same. A Three-Judge Bench of this Court inCrescent Dyes and Chemicals Lid vs. Ram Naresh Tripathi, (1993) 2 SCC 115 = 1992 Suppl.
(3) SCR 559, laid down that the right to be represented in the
15 of 18 departmental proceedings initiated against a delinquent employee can be regulated or restricted by the Management or by the Service Rules. It was held that the right to be represented by an advocate in the departmental Proceedings can be restricted and regulated by statutes or by the Service Rules including the Standing Orders, applicable to the employee concerned. The whole case law was reviewed by this Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Maharashtra Genl Kamgar Union & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 626, and it was held that a delinquent employee has no right to be represented by an advocate in the departmental proceedings and that if a right to be represented by @ co-workman is given to him, the departmental Proceedings would not be bad only for the reason that the assistance of an advocate was not provided to him."
d) In the case of Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd.(supra), it is observed and held that in the departmental proceedings right to be represented through counsel or agent can be restricted, controlled or regulated by statute, rules, regulations or Standing Orders. A delinquent has no right to be represented through counsel or agent unless the law specifically confers such a right. The requirernent of the rule of natural justice insofar as the delinquent's right of hearing is concerned, cannot and does hot extend to aright to be represented through counsel or agent. In the case before this Court, the delinquent's right to representation was regulated by the Standing Orders which permitted a clerk or a workman working with him in the same department to represent him and said right stood expanded permitting representation through an officer, staffmember or a member of the Union, on being authorised by the State Government. Holding that the 16 of 18 same is permissible and cannot be said to be in violation of principles of natural justice, it is observed that the object and purpose of such provisions are to ensure that the domestic enquiry is completed with despatch and is not prolonged endlessly; secondly, when the person defending the delinquent is from the department or establishment in which the delinquent is working he would be well conversant with the working of that department and the relevant rules and would, therefore, be able to render satisfactory service to the delinquent. In the present case also clause 8 permits representation through serving officials / employee from the Bank.
e) A similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (supra) as well as in the case of National Seeds Corporation Limited (supra).
f} Inthe case of Indian Overseas Bank , it is observed and held that Jaw does not concede an absolute right of representation to an employee in domestic enquiries as part of his right to be heard and that there is no right to representation by somebody else unless the rules or regulation and standing orders, specifically recognize such a right and provide for such representation.
13. Applying law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, the applicant/ delinquent has no absolute right to avail the services by the retired Government Servant as his 17 of 18
-~\Defence Assistant in the departmental proceedings. Rule 14(8) (b), provides that the Government servant may also take the assistance of a retired Government servant to present the case on his behalf, subject to such conditions as may be specified by the President from time to time by general or special order in this behalf and one of the conditions prescribed by the Government of India vide Deptt. Of Personnel & Training OM No. 11012/11/2002-Estt(A) dated 05.02.2003] is that the Retired Government Servant cannot function as Defence Assistant in more than seven cases at any point of time. Since the said condition was violated, Sri P. Loganathan, was debarred. Sri P. Loganathan, had not challenged his debarment and the legality CF the debarment of Sri P. Loganathan by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Krishnagiri Division, Krishnagirir 635 001 (2) Superintendent of Post Offices, Vellore Division, Vellore 632 001 and (3) by the Inquiry Oficer and Asst. Supdt. Of Post Offices, Arakkonam Sub Division, Arakkonam 631 001, cannot be challenged by the applicant and the applicant cannot act as proxy for Sri P: Loganathan. i4. The applicant was never denied of getting assistance of a Defence Assistant and enough time.was given to him to nominate a Defence Assistant and applicant himself had admitted that the 3" respondent, permitted him to nominate a Defence Assistant. The Inquiry Officer vide his letter No. TRL/SB/IO-01/2018/Dles dated 24.4.2018 had advised him to nominate any other eligible person as his Defence Assistant, which only reveals the intent of the Inquiry Officer to strictly abide by the "Principles of natural justice" and it is open to the applicant to nominate on eligible person as his Defence Assistant.
15. The orders passed by the 24 respondent in Memo No. F l/iv-1/17-18 dated 1} 18 of 18 28.5.2018, the order of the Inquiry Officer, in Lr. No. TRL/SB/IO-01/2018/dlgs dated 24.4.2018 and the Order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the Director of Postal Services Chennai City Region, Chennai -- 600 002 are legally tenable and valid as per Rules. The inquiry cannot be continued due to the non-cooperation of the applicant and the suspension of the applicant is prolonged for the reason attributable directly to him and the order of the 2™ respondent in reducing the subsistence allowance by 50% is fully justified.
16. In the conspectus of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the ® judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court, we do not see any justification to allow the OA in favour of the applicant. Resultantly, the OA is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly ordered. No costs.
17. According to Learned counsel for the applicant, now Mr. Loganathan, Defence Assistant is having less than 7 number cases and meets the eligibility conditions to be engaged as Defence Assistant. Since the case is pending for long time, there is no bar for the respondents to consider the request of the applicant to engage Mr. Loganathan as Defence Assistant if he is otherwise eligible now.
18. In view of the dismissal of the OA, all the pending MAs stand closed.