Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
B.Ch.Rama Rao vs The Senior Supdt. Of Post Offices on 12 August, 2008
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD Original Application No. 893/2005 Date of Order : 12.08.2008 Between: B.Ch.Rama Rao ... Applicant And 1.The Senior Supdt. of Post Offices, Visakhapatnam Division, Visakhapatnam. 2.The Director Postal Services, O/o Postmaster General, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam. 3.The Assistant Postmaster General (S&V), O/o. Chief Postmaster General, Hyderabad 500 001. 4.The Chief Postmaster General, A.P.Circle, Hyderabad 1. 5.The Supdt. of Post Offices, Anakapalli Division, Anakapalli 531 001. Visakhapatnam District. ... Respondents Counsel for the applicant ... Mr.Ch. Ravinder Counsel for the respondents ... Mr.G.Jayaprakash Babu Sr.CGSC CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.Lakshmana Reddy ... Vice Chairman Hon'ble Mr. R.Santhanam ... Member (Admn.) ORAL ORDER
{As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Lakshmana Reddy, Vice Chairman } Heard Mr.Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.G.Jayaprakash Babu, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents.
2. This application is filed challenging the orders in Memo No.ST/17/Staff/Adalat/2005, dated 05.09.2005 wherein the Director of Postal Services ordered that the name of the applicant be deleted from the list of approved LSG officials communicated vide OO letter No.ST/6-1/97 dated 21.08.2003 and repatriated to his parent division, Anakapalli terminating the officiating arrangement in HSG-I post of Sub Postmaster, Maharanipeta SO, Visakhapatnam with immediate effect.
3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows :
The applicant while working in Anakapalli division was promoted on notional basis to LSG cadre w.e.f. 27.04.1992 in the accounts line of Vizianagaram division vide OO letter No.ST/6-1/97 dated 21.08.2003. Consequent on introduction of Fast Track Promotion Scheme the applicant was promoted to HSG-II cadre notionally w.e.f. 01.10.2001 vide Memo dated 16.04.2004 basing on the notional promotion given in LSG cadre and posted as Assistant Manager, PSD,Rajahmundry vide memo dated 29.04.2004. While so, the notional promotion of LSG/HSG-II cadre to the applicant has been re-examined on the representation of one Sri K.Raja Rao, APM, A/c's Anakapalle HO in which it was alleged that he was deprived of his promotion to LSG cadre though his junior i.e. the applicant was promoted to HSG-II cadre. The Director of Post Offices observed that notional promotion in Vizianagaram division given to the applicant basing on the seniority position in A/c's line cadre in Vizianagaram Division, especially when he originally belonged to Anakapalle Division was found irregular and the applicant should have been considered for promotion to LSG cadre on notional basis on his seniority in Anakapalkle Division. On that premise show cause notice was issued to the applicant vide SPO's Anakapalle Division letter dated 06.05.2005 to show cause as to why his name should not be deleted from the list of LSG officials as it was erroneously included in Vizianagaram Division where he worked purely on adhoc basis while he originally belonged to Anakapalle Division. The applicant submitted his explanation to the show cause notice on 11.05.2005 stating that the post of APM Accounts is a circle cadre and had the regular arrangement been made he should have been selected on regular basis from the year 1991 onwards and even after divisionalisation w.e.f. 08.06.1994, it is only for the purpose of posting and transfer and not for selection on promotion, and the selection to LSG/HSG-II was ordered to be completed on the basis of regional seniority/divisional seniority vide DGP letter dated 28.01.1993. His working period at Vizianagaram during the year 1991 was stated to be found irregular though it was on regional arrangement. As none came forward he was appointed for the post. The adhoc arrangement should have been terminated within one year but continued for 3 = years which naturally to be considered for regularisation in terms of C.A.T. Principal Bench decision in OAs 1903 and 1904 delivered on 11.05.1993. It is further pleaded in the explanation to the show cause notice that as per DGP letter dated 24.02.1981 and 01.12.1992 defunct scale accountants are not eligible for the post of APM Accounts and Sri K.Raja Rao was defunct scale accountant and was officiating as APM Accounts, Anakapalle HO ignoring the applicant. As Sri K.Raja Rao opted for defunct scale in the year 1990 and hence he cannot be promoted to LSG w.e.f. 1990 on the ground that he has given revised option in the year 1990. It is further pleaded in the explanation that as the selection to the cadre of HSG -II was in view of DGP's letter dated 11.02.2002 and has been now in the HSG-II cadre under the control of S.S.P.Os, V.M. Division and earlier he was appointed as APM Accounts by the DPS VM Region, the authority just above the appointing authority should have issued the show cause notice if it is found irregular.
4. Thereafter, the Director of Postal Services, Office of Post Master General, Visakhapatnam issued the impugned order which is filed as Annexure 5 to the OA deleting the name of the applicant from the list of approved LSG officials and ordered to communicate the same to the applicant and also repatriated the applicant to his parent division, Anakapalle terminating officiating arrangement of HSG-I post of Sub Postmaster, Maharanipeta SO, Visakhapatnam with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the said orders the applicant has filed the present OA. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the Director of Postal Services is not competent to delete the applicant's name from the approved list of LSG officials as the promotion of the applicant to LSG cadre was given by the Chief Postmaster General as the LSG post is of a circle cadre and not a division cadre and further the impugned order is not at all speaking order and no reasons are given for deleting the name of the applicant from the list of LSG officials and the impugned order simply mentions about the issue of show cause notice and the filing of the reply and then the final decision of deletion of the name of the applicant, and that none of the contentions raised in the explanation to the show cause notice have been discussed and answered and therefor the impugned order is not sustainable on that ground also.
5. The respondents in their reply admitted the facts stated by the applicant. But the respondents contended that on account of divisionalisation the Director of Postal Services has got power to pass the impugned order. The promotion of the applicant to LSG cadre was only an adhoc arrangement as there was shortage of LSG official in that division and that it does not confer any right on the applicant either for promotion or seniority but by mistake he was given promotion to LSG and HSG -II and when K.Raja Rao submitted a representation stating that his junior was promoted, the mistake was realized and thereafter issued show cause notice. It is admitted by the respondents in para-20 of the reply that on introduction of TBOP scheme, one K.Raja Rao has passed the PO & RMS Accounts examination in the year 1979 and opted accounts line and on introduction of TBOP scheme he opted to remain in defunct scale. Subsequently vide letter dated 21.01.1998 the said Raja Rao gave the revised option to change over to TBOP/BCR scheme vide his letter dated 17.02.1998 and then Sri Raja Rao was given TBOP w.e.f. 09.01.1990 and then the option of the applicant to change over to TBOP/BCR scheme on the basis of inter seniority in PA cadre between the applicant and Sri K.Raja Rao holds good and thus the contention of the applicant is not correct.
6. The point that arise for our consideration in this application is whether the impugned order is sustainable in law or not ?
7. The applicant challenged the impugned order on two grounds i.e. (1)Director of Postal services is not competent to pass the order deleting the name of the applicant in the approved LSG officials list.
(2)Even if it is assumed that Director of Postal Services has got such power the impugned order does not contain any reason for deletion and it is thus not a speaking order.
8. As seen from the show cause notice dated 06.05.2005 issued by SPO of Anakapalle division it is mentioned as follows :
Chief Postmaster General, A.P.Circle, Hyderabad-I vide his letter no.st/6-1(P)/05 dated 15.04.2005 has intimated that it is found that you were promoted to APM (Accounts) on purely temporary and adhoc basis and posted against the vacant post of APM (Accounts) in Vizianagaram Division by R.O., Visakhapatnam during the year 1991 and you were posted back subsequently during the year 1995 as LSG Accountant, Chodavaram HO in Anakapalle Division. In view of the above, the notional promotion to the cadre of LSG, basing on your seniority position in Accounts line cadre in Vizianagaram division especially when you belong to Anakapalle Division, is found to be irregular.
9. Therefore, it is obvious that the said show cause notice was issued on the orders of the Chief Postmaster General, A.P.Circle, Hyderabad. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the SPO, Anakapalle is not competent to issue even show cause notice. But we are unable to agree as the show cause notice was issued on the basis of the orders of the Chief Post Master General, A.P.Circle. But as seen from the Annexure 4 to the OA the applicant has submitted his explanation raising several contentions therein, which are required to be considered and decided by the CPMG, A.P.Circle, Hyderabad, as the promotion of the applicant to LSG cadre was given by the CPMG. The respondents in their reply pleaded that it is on account of divisionalisation the Director of Postal Services who passed the impugned order is competent. But as seen from the rules the said divisionalisation is only in respect of transfers and so far as the promotions and disciplinary matters are concerned the LSG post is considered as a circle level posting and in respect of that Chief Post Master General alone is competent to pass orders in case of promotions or in case of disciplinary matters. Therefore, the Director of Postal Services, Office of Postmaster General, Visakhapatnam division is not competent to alter the list of LSG promotion given by the Chief PMG. If at all any mistake had been crept in, in the promotions to the LSG cadre the same mistake can be rectified only by the Chief Postmaster General after issuing show cause notice and after considering the explanation given by the affected party. But here in this case though show cause notice was issued and the applicant has filed his explanation showing cause as to why his name should not be deleted from the list of LSG officials, the said explanation ought to have been considered by the Chief Post Master General and ought to have taken a decision whether to delete the name of the applicant from the approved list of LSG promotions and communicate the same to the applicant. But instead of doing so, the Director of Postal Services in the Office of Postmaster General, Visakhapatnam himself passed an order deleting the name of the applicant from the approved list of LSG officials dated 27.03.1992 and communicated to the applicant by an order dated 21.08.2003. Therefore, on this ground of incompetency alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits as we have come to the conclusion that the authority who passed the impugned order has got no competency to pass such an order. Further as seen from the impugned order no reasons are given by the Director of Postal services for deletion of the name of the applicant from the approved list of LSG officials and none of the contentions raised in the explanation of the show cause notice have been decided by the Director of Postal Services. However, as he is found incompetent to decide the matter, the non-mentioning of reasons is not of much relevance, and he is found not competent to pass an order with or without reasons the impugned order is liable to be set aside. But the Chief Postmaster General is not precluded from taking an appropriate decision in accordance with the rules after considering the explanation submitted by the applicant dated 11.05.2005 to the show cause notice issued to him on 06.05.2005 on the instructions of the Chief Post Master General. But the Postmaster General is directed to pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the applicant.
10. Accordingly, the OA is allowed setting aside the impugned order on technical grounds without going into the merits and giving liberty to the Chief Postmaster General to consider the explanation of the applicant to the show cause notice and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The applicant is at liberty to submit additional explanation if he so desires to the Chief Post Master General in support of his contentions that his name cannot be deleted from the approved list of LSG promotions. In which case the Chief Postmaster General has to consider such additional explanation also. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.
( R.SANTHANAM) (P.LAKSHMANA REDDY) MEMBER (ADMN.) VICE CHAIRMAN Dated : 12th August, 2008 (Dictated in Open Court)