Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
C.Geetha vs The Superintendent Of Post Offices on 22 November, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A. NO. 1048 OF 2013
Friday, this the 22nd day of November, 2013
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. K.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
C.Geetha
Poovethodi Kovilingal
Palode PO, Mannarkkad
Palakkad - 678 582
Postal Assistant
Post Office Mannarkkad
Palghat ... Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. K.Mohanakannan)
versus
1. The Superintendent of Post Offices
Ottappalam Division, Ottappalam - 679 101
2. Inspector of Posts, Mannarkkad Sub Division
Mannarkkad - 678 582
3. Assistant Superintendent of Posts
Pattambi Sub Division, Pattambi - 679 303
4. Sub Divisional Inspector
Department of Posts
Mannarkkad - 678 582
5. K.Mohammed, GDSMP
Perimbadari
Mannarkkad, Palakkad - 678 582 ... Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. Pradeep Krishna, ACGSC)
The application having been heard on 22.11.2013, the Tribunal on the
same day delivered the following:
O R D E R
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER, JUDICIAL MEMBER The short but interesting question that arises for consideration in this Original Application is whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. the applicant has got the locus standi to institute this Original Application.
2. Applicant is presently working as Postal Assistant at Mannarkkad Post Office in Palakkad District. It appears that on December 11, 2009, a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Packer working in her office had allegedly misbehaved towards her by using " abusive words". On the basis of a written complaint filed by the applicant in this regard, a charge sheet was issued to the said Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Packer. The Inquiry Officer after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced before him held that the charge levelled against the delinquent employee was proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the above finding and imposed a penalty of debarring the delinquent employee " from appearing for the recruitment examination for the post of Postman for a period of two years with immediate effect." A copy of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is on record as Annexure A-3.
3. The above order was sought to be reviewed by the applicant by way of a representation filed before Respondent No.1 contending inter-alia that the penalty imposed on the delinquent employee was not adequate enough or commensurate with the offence committed by him. However, Respondent No.1 refused to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as could be seen from Annexure A-5.
4. While seeking to quash the above two orders, applicant prays that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to impose maximum punishment on the delinquent employee " considering her complaint, the inquiry report and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority."
5. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the applicant is a person aggrieved as contemplated under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985 (for short the Act). Relevant Clauses under Section14 and 19 of the Act are extracted hereunder:-
" 14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal:-
(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all Courts in relation to -
(a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services, being, in either case, a post filled by a civilian;
(b) all service matters concerning-
(i) a member of any All India Service; or
(ii) a person [not being a member of an All India
Service or a person referred to in Clause (c)] appointed to any civil service of the Union or any civil post under the Union; or
(iii) a civilian [ not being a member of an All India Service or a person referred to in Clause (c) ] appointed to any defence services or a post connected with defence;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. "
(emphasis supplied)
19. Applications to Tribunals:-
(1) Subject to other provisions of this Act, a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal may make an application to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievances.
EXPLANATION- For the purposes of this sub-section, "order" means an order made-
(a) by the Government or a local or other authority within the territory of India or under the Control of the Government of India by any Corporation [ or Society] owned or controlled by the Government; or (emphasis supplied)
(b) by an officer, committee or other body or agency of the Government or other local or other authority or Corporation [ or society] referred to in Clause (a).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ."
Section 3 (q) defines service matters as hereunder:-
(q) "service matters", in relation to a person, means all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India, or as the case may be, of any Corporation [or society] owned or controlled by the Government, as respects-
(i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits;
(ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, premature retirement and superannuation;
(iii) leave of any kind;
(iv) disciplinary matters; or
(v) any other matter whatsoever."
(emphasis supplied)
6. A perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act extracted above will unambiguously show that only a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to or in relation to his service matter can approach this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Act. Applicant has filed this Original Application challenging the inadequacy of the penalty imposed on Respondent No.5 in the Departmental Proceeding which of course, was initiated at her behest.
It is undoubtedly true that the law was set in motion by the applicant which culminated in the Departmental proceeding referred to above. Obviously the law has taken its course and the guilty has been punished, apparently after considering the evidences given by the applicant and other witnesses before the Inquiry Officer. In our view, the buck has to stop there as far as the applicant is concerned.
7. In Northern Plastics Limited vs. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Company Limited, (1997) 4 SCC 452, the Lordships of the Supreme Court had made the following observations:
" Innumerable statues both in England and in India give the right of appeal to a `person aggrieved' by an order made and the provisions of such statues have to be construed in each case to find out whether the person preferring an appeal falls within that expression. As was observed in Robinson v. Currey the words `person aggrieved' are `ordinary English words which are to have the ordinary meaning put upon them.' According to Halsbury's Laws of England `..... the expression is nowhere defined and must be construed by reference to the context of the enactment in which it appears and all the circumstances.' Attempts have however from time to time been made to define the expression in various cases. In Sidebotham, it was observed by James, L.J:
`But the words "person aggrieved" do not really mean a man who is disappointed of a benefit which he might have received if some other order had been made. A "person aggrieved" must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something, or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something."
8. In the above decision, the Court had considered the wider concept of locus standi in public interest litigation moved before the Apex Court and the High Court under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India respectively. Similarly, the Court had also considered the right of appeal by " so called aggrieved persons " against orders passed under various statutes.
9. In Thammanna vs. K.Veera Reddy and Others, (1980) 4 SCC 62, it has been held that although the meaning of the expression "person aggrieved" may vary according to the context of the statute and the facts of the case, nevertheless, normally, " a ' person aggrieved ' must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something."
10. However, learned counsel for the Applicant has invited our attention to the decision rendered by the Apex Court In Gopabandhu Biswal vs. Krishna Chandra Mohanty and others , (1998) 4 SCC 447. The question that came up for consideration in this case was whether a Review Application by a third party could be entertained by the Administrative Tribunal, if he was " aggrieved " by the decision rendered by the Tribunal. While answering the above question in the affirmative the Court held that " only persons who are directly and immediately affected by the impugned order can be considered as parties aggrieved."
11. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstance of the case, we are not inclined to entertain this Original Application since in our view the applicant is not a person aggrieved and therefore he does not have the locus standi to approach this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Act.
12. Original Application fails and it is accordingly dismissed in limine. No costs.
Dated, the 22nd November, 2013. GEORGE JOSEPH JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER vs