Madras High Court
M.Malaikkani vs Union Of India on 4 February, 2010
Author: M.Chockalingam
Bench: M.Chockalingam, T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.02.2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.No.1911 of 2010
M.Malaikkani ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Rep. By the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications and
Information Technology,
Department of Post,
Dak Bhavan,
Sabsadnmarg,
New Delhi.
2. Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
3. The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai. .. Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Malaichamy
For Respondents : Mr.M.L.Ramesh,SPCCG for R1 and R2
Tribunal R3
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This writ petition challenges an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal made in O.A.No.281 of 2007 whereby the order passed by the respondents was confirmed.
2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the respondents.
3. The writ petition has arisen under the following facts and circumstances:
The applicant, while working as a Superintendent in the Postal Department, was served with a memorandum of charges on 26.9.2003, containing four charges, which runs as follows:
"(i) While working as Superintendent of Post Offices Arakkonam Division during the period from 05.11. 1996 to 21.5.2001 Sri.M.Malaikani Senior Postmaster Tallakulam HO under Mudurai Division in Southern Region Tamilnadu had not renotified the vacancy for the post of EDBPM, Gudaleri BO when all the candidates were not satisfying to the conditions of property and income but had selected and appointed Smt.Kavitha as EDBPM Gudaleri BO account with Timiri SO on 5.6.98 vide his Memo No.B2/3-13/2 dated 03.06.98, though she had not submitted property deed and income certificate in her name before the last date for receipt of application in violation of DG's instructions in Letter No.19-4/97-ED & TRG dated 19.8.98 and in letter No. 17104/91 ED & TRG dated 6th December 1993 and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty in contravention of Rule 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
ii) While working in the above mentioned post during the above mentioned period, Sri.M.Malaikani, Senior Postmaster Tallakulam HO under Madurai Division had issued open notification on 06.03.97 calling fro applications for the post of ED BPM Palayamamottur BO account with Banavaram SO when the list of candidates sponsored by the Employment exchange vide letter No.X2/39/97 dated 17.2.97 for the said post as called for by him vide his letter dated 04.02.97 was available with him on 03.03.97 and selected Sri.G.Thanigachalam who had secured 211 marks while there had been four other candidates by name Sri.S.Parivel, Sri.N.Kesavan, Sri Deivasigamani and Sri.S.Setty more meritorious than the selected candidate by securing 226/500, 270/500, 269/500 and 236/500 marks in SSLC with property and income qualifications. It is in violation of the instructions contained in DG's letter No.45-22/79-SPB-1/Pen dated 4.9.92 and DG's Letter No.17-366/91 ED & TRG dated 12.3.93 and Para 7 of DG's letter No.19-11/97-ED & TRG dated 27.11.97 and thereby the offer failed to maintain devotion to duty in contravention of Rule 3 (i)(ii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.
iii) While working as SPOs, Tiruvannamalai division during the period from 25.9.01 to 06.05.02 Sri Malaikani, Senior Postmaster Tallakulam HO under Madurai Division had ordered vide DO Letter No. A/58 dated 26th March, 2002 addressed to Sri V.Kodhandapani, Postmaster Arni HO for diversion of the post of EDSV Tiruvettipuram SO to Arni Fort SO when there was no justification for such redeployment and without obtaining the orders of the competent Authority in writing by submitting a proposal and directed Sri.Balasubramaniam SPM Tiruvettipuram SO calling him to Arni Fort SO for the relief of the incumbent of the post of work as EDA Palli BO without issuing any order in writing in violation of DG's letter No.2-2/97-PE-I dated 7th September 1995 and 2-4/97-PE-I dated 23.1.97 and Rule 3 (2)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 and thereby failed to maintain devotion too duty in contravention of Rule 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
iv) While working in the above mentioned post during the above mentioned period Sri.M.Malaikani, Senior Postmaster Tallakulam Ho under the Madurai Division had ordered the shifting of Santhavasal Post office to an alternate building offered by Sri.V.Udayakumar without giving wide publicity on the requirement of a building to house the Post Office and ordered the fixation of rent of rs.800/- vide his office Note dated 6.5.02 without assessing the fair Rent Calculation in Promforma I and II and the office was shifted before the additional amenities were got completed in violation of instructions of Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi in letter No.10-13/99/Bldg dated 08.07.99 as communicated in chief Postmaster General contained in letter No.Vig/1-7/88/Pt dated 14.6.89 and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty in contravention of Rule 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
4. The above charges were pursuant to an inspection report. After the charges were framed, explanation was called for. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who made proper enquiry, in which, the petitioner participated. After the enquiry was over, the findings were recorded, whereby the charges were found proved. On service of the findings, the petitioner filed a representation. In the meanwhile, the petitioner retired from service. Thereafter, a letter dated 25.8.2006 was served upon the petitioner imposing a penalty of 10% cut in the pension for a period of three years with immediate effect. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed the said Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
5. What was all contended before the Tribunal and equally here also is that, in respect of the first two charges, they could not stand in view of Rule 9 of CCS(CCA) Rules as the charges could not be leveled against a person, for any act, committed four years prior to the framing of charges. Further, insofar as the fourth charge is concerned, it was not a case that there was lack of evidence but there was no evidence at all. There was not even one allegation against the petitioner that he has acted for any pecuniary benefit. Hence, no pecuniary loss has occurred to the Department.
6. After hearing the contentions putforth by the learned counsel for the applicant/ petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and after looking into the materials available, the Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition does not carry any merits whatsoever.
7. It is not in controversy that while the petitioner was working as a Superintendent in the Postal Service, the charge memo was served on him. Following the report given by the Inspection officer, an enquiry officer was appointed and the petitioner also participated in the enquiry. It is not the case of the petitioner that any ruling of the principles of natural justice was offended.
8. As could be seen from the charges, insofar as the first charge was concerned, the petitioner appointed one Kavitha as ED BPM even without getting salary certificate as one required under the Rules. It was contravening to Rule 3(1) (i)of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1964. Insofar as the second charge was concerned, he selected a person who secured 211 marks while four other candidates who secured more marks for the post of ED BPM while he was working at Palayapalayamottur. It is also in violation of the Rules. Thirdly, permitted one Balasubramanian to work in the postal service without obtaining the orders of the competent authority in writing, while he was working in Tiruvannamalai Division. Fourthly, without making publication on the requirement of the building to house the post office and without taking into consideration of any approval from the higher authorities, he ordered fixation of rent at Rs.8,00/-. Thus, it was also in contravention of the Rules. All these four charges are concerned, necessary documentary evidence placed before the Enquiry Officer were actually been scrutinised and he also recorded that the charges were proved. What were all contended before the Enquiry Officer were actually reiterated before the Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal has pointed out that there was no need for re-appreciation of the evidence since it was once considered by the Enquiry Officer.
9. At this juncture, the contention putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not carry any merit whatsoever. Insofar as charge Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the charges were framed just one day prior to four years as the one required under the Rule. Insofar as this is concerned, this court is of the opinion that the enquiry officer has given a finding that the charges stood proved on the strength of the evidence available and on proper scrutiny and the same was also affirmed by the Tribunal. This Court is of the opinion that the same cannot be re-appreciated. Apart from this, in the instant case, pending enquiry, the petitioner has retired from service and what was all the penalty imposed is 10% cut in pension for three years.
10. Taking into consideration the gravity of the charges, which stood proved, the penalty imposed is 10% pension cut for three years. This Court is of the opinion that the respondent department has taken a lenient view and has awarded a minor punishment. Hence, the order of the Tribunal does not require any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
(M.C.J.) (T.R.J.)
Index:Yes/No 04.02.2010
Internet:Yes/No
vsi
M.CHOCKALINGAM,J.
and
T.RAJA,J.
Vsi
W.P.No.1911 of 2010
04.02.2010