Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Asim Kumar Midya vs D/O India Post on 5 July, 2018
- '-----------.----------- -
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CALCUTTA BENCH
No. O.A. 350/948/2018 Date of Order: 05.07.2018
Present: Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
Sri Asim Kumar Midya, son of late Anadi
Binod Midya, the SPM Kalagachia and now
Functioning as Postal Assistant Haria SO
Under Contai Postal Division, residing at
VIII + P.O. Boga, Dist- Purba Medinipur,
Pin- 721431.
Applicant
1 hthe
40
unication'
Department
Delhi-
Th General, West
Benga ing office at "Yogayog
Bhawan", P-36, Chittaranjan Avenue,
51h
Floor, Kolkata- 700012;
The Director of Postal Services (Head
Quarter), West Bengal Circle, having
Office at "Yogayog Bhawan", P-36,
5th
Chittaranjan Avenue, Floor, Kolkata-
700012;
The Post Master Genera l,South Bengal
Region, having office at "Yogayog Bhawan",
51h
P-36, Chittaranjan Arieue, Floor, Kolkata-
700012;
The Superintendent of Post Offices, Contain
Division, Post Office - Contai, District- Purba
Medinipur, Pin- 721401;
2
The Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post Office,
Contai 2' Sub-Division, Post Office Contai,
District- Purba Medinipur, Pin- 721401;
Sri S. S. Hazra, 1.0. & Retired Superintendent
Of Post Offices, Tamluk Division, residing at
Post Office- Midnapore, District- Paschim
Medinipur, Pin- 721101.
Respondents.
For the Applicant Mr. S.K Dutta, Counsel
Mr. B. Chatterjee, Counsel
For the Respondents None
ORDER (Oral)
Nandita AdministrativeiVlernber:
Heard Id. counsel for t respondents.
2. The instant applicat as nt seeking the following
reFief:
11 8(a)The order dated No. F4/A-1/KCA/Disc/08/15,
issued by the Superint i Division being Annexure 'F'
be set aside;
(b) The respondent and each of them particularly the respondent no. 5 being the Superintendent of Post Offices, Contai Division, Purba Medinipur be directed to immediately appoint any other Inquiring Authority in place of Mr. S. S. Hazra, retired SPOS, Tamluk Division;
(c ) The respondents and each of them be directed to treat the inquiry hold against theapplicant on and from 18.10.2017 till date as bad in law and to commence the inquiry against the applicant from the state it stood on 18.10.2017 before the appointment of the said Mr. S. S. Hazra;
(d) The portion of the Disciplinary Authority conducted by Mr. S. S. Hazra, retired SPOS, Tamluk Division and the present Inquiring Officer on and from 18.10.2017 till date be held as null and void by this Hon'ble Tribunal for the reasons disclosed in this application;
(e ) Costs of and/or incidental to this application be directed to be borne by the respondent authorities;
1LJ 3 *
(f) Such further and/or other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be given, as to this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
Ld. Counsel for applicant submits that the applicant had preferred a Bias Petition against the Inquiry Officer vide his representation dated 10.01.2018 followed by a representation dated 16.05.2018 (as annexed in Annexure A-9 collectively to the O.A) and that the respondent authorities, upon receipt of the same, had rejected his representation vide their order dated 01.05.2018 (annexed as Annexure A-10 to the O.A).
Ld. Counsel for applicant vociferously submits that the applicant in his representation dated 16.05.2018 and particularly in para (i) of the same had 7th referred to the provision of O.M Nod, F. 4/40/2015-AVD.1 dated January, /c% fl 2016 wherein it has been Zave o rA d\hat Retired Officers of the Central Govt. below the ftof arr4t eligible for appointment .tc) as 1.0. for conducting the iepar Ld. Counsel for applica on to the relevant OM dated 7th January, 2016 and particularly para the same (annexed in Annexure A-7 to the O.A).
5. Upon perusal of the order of the respondent authorities as annexed in Annexure A-lU to the O.A., it is seen, however, that the reference to the O.M. of DOPT dated 7" January, 2016 as made in applicant's representation dated 16,05.2018 has not been deliberated upon or discussed by the respondent authorities while passing their order. Accordingly we are of the considered view that the directions contained in the O.M of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions is required to be examined by the respondent authorities before proceeding with any further inquiry.
46. Ld. Counsel for applicant seeks liberty to prefer a comprehensive representation to Respondent No. 5 who is the Disciplinary Authority in this context. The applicant is hence hereby granted liberty to prefer such comprehensive representation within a period of 3 weeks after receipt of a copy of this order and the Respondent No. 5, after receipt of such representation, shall dispose of the same within a period of 4 weeks with a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, particularly with reference to the O.M bearing No. 7th F. No. 142/40/2015-AVD.1 dated January, 2016 of DOPT.
The decision so arrived at, shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith and until the respondent no. 5 decides on the appropriate inquiry authority, the proceedings will be kept in / 17"
With these directions,iS erl I be no order on costs.
7. ' -I (Bidisha Banerjee) (Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) Member(J) Member (A) m es