Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
B K Harish vs D/O Posts on 2 June, 2023
1
OA.No.170/00392/2021/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00392/2021
ORDER RESERVED ON 27.04.2023
DATE OF ORDER: 02.06.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
Sri B.K. Harish, 31 years
Son of Sri B.V. Krishnappa,
Gramin Dak Sevak/Mail Delivery (GDS/MD)
Malur Sub-Office,
Malur: 563 130,
Kolar Postal Division, Kolar,
(Under orders of removal from engagement)
Residing at Baliganahalli B.O,
Malur Taluk, Malur: 563 139 .... Applicant
(By Shri P.A. Kulkarni, Advocate)
Vs.
1. Chief Post Master General,
Karnataka Circle,
Palace Road, Bengaluru 560 001
2. Post Master General and
Revisional Authority,
S.K. Region, Palace Road,
Bengaluru 560 001
2
OA.No.170/00392/2021/CAT/BANGALORE
3. Director of Postal Services
And Appellate Authority,
Office of Post Master General,
S.K. Region, Palace Road,
Bengaluru 560 001
4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
And Disciplinary Authority,
Kolar Division,
Kolar 563 101
5. Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kolar Sub-Division,
Kolar: 563 101 ...Respondents
(By Shri K. Gajendra Vasu, Senior Panel Counsel)
ORDER
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Quash the orders bearing Memo No: F3/2/19-20, dated 12.11.2020, Annexure-A11, passed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kolar Division, Kolar Respondent No. 4 herein, No: SK/STA/9-31/2020/I, dated 18.01.2021, Annexure-A13, passed by Director of Postal Services, SK Region, Bengaluru R-3 herein and Memo No: SK/STA/9-5/03/2021/II, dated 09.07.2021, Annexure-A16, passed by Post Master General, SK Region, Bengaluru, Respondent No. 2 herein.3
OA.No.170/00392/2021/CAT/BANGALORE
(b) Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant by restoring him to the charge held by him as on the date of passing of the punishment order dated 12.11.2020 Annexure-A11 with continuity of service and all consequential benefits including the monetary benefits flowing therefrom.
(c) Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem it fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that while he was working as Grameen Dak Sevak (MC) at Vemgal SO under Respondent No. 5 ASP Kolar, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The applicant in his written statement dated 25.04.2020 stated that the irregularities pointed out in the charge memo have taken place by Badli Worker, whom he engaged while he was away from duty to attend his father's medical problem connected with life threatening cardiac situation. The Disciplinary Authority decided to hold detailed inquiry in the matter by appointing one Shri N. Anil Kumar, ASP (HQ), Chitradurga Division as the Inquiry Officer and Smt K.S. Swathi, Inspector, Posts, Sira Sub-Division, Tumkur as Presenting Officer. 4
OA.No.170/00392/2021/CAT/BANGALORE
3. The applicant contends that he was persuaded to accept the charges levelled against him. Under such circumstances, the applicant, at the preliminary hearing stage. i.e., on 18.08.2020 gave a letter admitting all the articles of charges. The Inquiry Officer without holding the detailed inquiry as enjoined under Rule 10 of the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 ('Rules' for short), concluded the inquiry by drawing daily order sheet No. 1 dated 18.08.2020. The Presenting Officer submitted a written brief to the Inquiry Officer on 15.09.2020 stating that the charges against the applicant are required to be held proved since the delinquent has admitted all the articles of charges during preliminary inquiry. On 18.09.2020, the Inquiry Officer sought for representation, if any, with reference to the Presenting Officer's report. Accordingly, the applicant submitted the representation dated 03.10.2020. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 15.10.2020 holding articles of charges 1 to 5 as proved relying on the applicant's admission sans considering the representation dated 03.10.2020.
4. The Inquiry Officer's report was forwarded to the applicant with the second show cause notice, to which the 5 OA.No.170/00392/2021/CAT/BANGALORE representation dated 04.11.2020 was submitted by the applicant reiterating the defence set up earlier. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of removal from engagement with immediate effect in terms of the order dated 12.11.2020. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was rejected. Further, Revision Petition was filed seeking revision of the action of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The said Revision Petition being rejected, the applicant is before this Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel Shri P.A. Kulkarni representing the applicant submitted that the Inquiry Officer, without conducting a detailed inquiry, concluded the inquiry by holding that the applicant has admitted all the 5 charges levelled against him. The applicant had consistently taken the defence that the irregularities pointed out in the charge memo have taken place by the Badli Worker whom the applicant had engaged when he was away from duty to attend to his father's medical treatment. The said defence of the applicant ought to have been inquired holding a detailed inquiry. Inviting the attention of the Bench to proviso to Rule 10 (1) of the Rules, learned counsel argued that no penalty of 6 OA.No.170/00392/2021/CAT/BANGALORE dismissal or removal from service could be imposed without holding inquiry. This goes to the root of the matter and hence the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority based on Inquiry Officer's report, imposing the penalty of removal from service, confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, deserves to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel further argued that this flaw found in the Inquiry Report, though brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, the same has not been considered by the said authorities in a right perspective. Accordingly, seeks for interference of this Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel Shri K. Gajendra Vasu representing the respondents argued that in Department of Posts, "Badli Worker"
(substitute) is allowed to work in place of GDS employees during leave period, only with prior permission of competent authority.
Applicant has never admitted in his statements, which were recorded during preliminary investigation that, he had engaged substitute and irregularities were committed by him. Even while admitting the charges before the Inquiry Officer, no such ground 7 OA.No.170/00392/2021/CAT/BANGALORE was raised. The inquiry proceedings were conducted strictly according to the prescribed rules. Denying the averments that the applicant was persuaded by the Inquiry Officer to accept the charges levelled against him, learned counsel submitted that the applicant has voluntarily admitted all the charges levelled against him unconditionally and requested the Inquiry Officer to conclude the inquiry. As such, the applicant's claim that no inquiry has been conducted as per Rule 10 of the Rules is untenable. No articles of charges were framed based on allegation of Badli Worker committing the irregularities, hence, there was no scope for Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry on that claim, more particularly, when the applicant has admitted all the charges unconditionally. Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority having considered these aspects extensively, rejected the appeal/revision filed by the applicant.
8. Learned counsel further argued that the applicant is responsible for irregularities occurred during his tenure as BPM and the same cannot be shifted on Badli Worker, as the applicant himself has signed all the Money Order forms as paying official and admitted the same in his statements also. Entrusting the work 8 OA.No.170/00392/2021/CAT/BANGALORE to a Badli Worker as stated by the applicant is an offence liable for stringent action. The ground raised by the applicant is nothing but shirking of responsibility which cannot be accepted. The punishment imposed by the respondents, being commensurate to the gravity of offence committed by the applicant, no interference of this Tribunal is warranted.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed the original file before the Bench in compliance with the order dated 20.01.2023 passed by this Tribunal.
10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the original records.
11. The article of charges framed against the applicant reads thus:
"STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SRI B.K. HARISH, DAK SEVAK (MC), VEMGAL S.O. ARTICLE-I 9 OA.No.170/00392/2021/CAT/BANGALORE That the said, Sri B. K. Harish, Dak Sevak (MC), Vemgal SO while working as BPM/MD/MC at Baliganahalli B.O a/w Masthi S.O, during the period from 24.08.2015 to 01.12.2018 had shown Social Security Pension eMO No. 047896283625938058 dated 07.06.2018 booked at Malur S.O for Rs. 600/- (Rs. Six hundred only) as paid on 25.06.2018 in the name of Sri. Agraharappa S/o Erappa, Kadavanapura (v), Baliganahalli (p) who was reported to have died on 13.09.2017 and accounted the same in the accounts of Baliganahalli B.O in violation of Rule 10 & 174 of Rules for Branch Offices (sixth edition) and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required by Rule-21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.
ARTICLE-II That the said, Sri B.K. Harish, Dak Sevak (MC), Vemgal S.O while working in the afore said office during the afore said period had shown Social Security Pension eMO No. 047896235324281942 dated 12.04.2018 booked at Malur S.O for Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five hundred only) as paid on 23.04.2018 in the name of Smt. Thippamma W/o Munivenkatappa, Chalaganahally (v), Baliganahalli (p) who was reported to have died on 20.03.2018 and accounted the same in the accounts of Baliganahalli B.O in violation of Rule 10 & 174 of Rules for Branch Offices (sixth edition) and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required by Rule-21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011.
ARTICLE-III That the said, Sri B.K. Harish, Dak Sevak (MC), Vemgal S.O while working in the afore said office during the afore said period had shown following Social Security Pension 10 OA.No.170/00392/2021/CAT/BANGALORE eMOs as paid in the name of Smt. Muniyamma W/o Chikkahanumappa, Chalaganahalli (v), Baliganahalli (P) after the death of Smt. Muniyamma as detailed below, who was reported to have died on 28.09.2017 and accounted the same in the accounts of Baliganahalli B.O in violation of Rule 10 & 174 of Rules for Branch Offices (sixth edition) and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required by Rule-21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011.
Name & address Date of eMO no., Booking date Amt Date of
of the payee death of Booked at Malur S.O (Rs) eMO
the payee shown as
paid
Smt. Muniyamma 28.09.2017 1) 047896186178670302 500 26.03.2018
W/o dated 14.02.2018
Chikkahanumappa
2) 047896235324575769 500 23.04.2018
Chalaganahalli (v),
Baliganahalli (P) dated 12.04.2018
3) 047896283625937741 600 26.06.2018
dated 07.06.2018
1600
ARTICLE-IV
That the said, Sri B.K. Harish, Dak Sevak (MC), Vemgal S.O while working in the afore said office during the afore said period had shown following Social Security Pension eMOs as paid in the name of Sri. Venkateshappa S/o Muniyappa, Chalaganahalli (v), Baliganahalli (P) after the death of Sri. Venkateshappa as detailed below who was reported to have died on 08.07.2017 and accounted the same in the accounts of Baliganahalli B.O in violation of Rule 10 & 174 of Rules for Branch Offices (sixth edition) and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as 11 OA.No.170/00392/2021/CAT/BANGALORE required by Rule-21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011.
Name & Date of eMO no., Booking date Amount Date of
address of the death of Booked at Malur S.O (Rs.) eMO
payee the payee shown as
paid
Sri 08.07.2017 1) 047896149709225755 500 02.02.2018
Venkateshappa dated 02.01.2018
S/o 2) 047896186187495855 500 26.03.2018
Muniyappa,
dated 14.02.2018
Chalaganahalli
(v), 3) 047896257754660982 600 01.06.2018
Baliganahalli dated 08.05.2018
(P) 4) 047896257754660964 600 01.06.2018
dated 08.05.2018
5) 047896283625684128 600 20.06.2018
dated 07.06.2018
2800
ARTICLE-V
That the said, Sri B.K. Harish, Dak Sevak (MC), Vemgal S.O while working in the afore said office during the afore said period had failed to write the particulars of eMOs received at Baliganahalli B.O for payment and their disposals in the B.O Journal (PA-5) during the period from 23.11.2016 to 28.06.2018 in volation of Rule 164 of Rules for Branch Offices (sixth edition). He has failed to write the particulars of eMOs paid in the dispatch side of B.O Journal (PA-5) of Baliganahalli B.O a/w Masthi S.O for the period from 23.11.2016 to 28.06.2018 in violation of Rule 173 of Rules for Branch Offices (sixth edition) and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required by Rule-21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011."12
OA.No.170/00392/2021/CAT/BANGALORE
12. Letter dated 18.08.2020 submitted by the applicant before the Inquiry Officer evinces that the applicant has admitted all the charges levelled against him unconditionally and thereby he has requested to conclude Rule 10 inquiry. Subsequent to which, the Presenting Officer has submitted the report dated 15.09.2020 holding the articles of charges as proved in view of the admission of all the charges unequivocally by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed strong emphasis on the letter dated 03.10.2020 submitted by the applicant (Annexure-A8) to contend that Rule 10 of the Rules ought to have been complied with, i.e., penalty of removal from engagement ought not to have been imposed for not holding an inquiry.
13. We have carefully examined the letter dated 18.08.2020 (Annexure-A4) and the letter dated 03.10.2020 (Annexure-A8) submitted by the applicant. In the letter dated 18.08.2020, the applicant has admitted the charges levelled against him unconditionally. The letter dated 03.10.2020 reads thus:
"Respected Sir, Subject: Inquiry under rule 10 of GDS (C&E) Rules 2011 Reference: Your letter No: IO/1/Baliganahalli BO/2020 dated 18.09.2020.13
OA.No.170/00392/2021/CAT/BANGALORE This is about Rule 10 charge sheet against me issued by SSPOs Kolar & your kind self has asked me to make a representation on PO brief vide your letter cited under reference. In this regard I would like to state here that
1) I have admitted all the charges levelled against me during inquiry sitting held on 18.08.2020 unconditionally.
2) I have already explained grounds under which the mistakes were happened vide my letter dated 18.08.2020 to SSPOs Kolar in reply to memorandum of charges.
However, I would like to narrate the same once again to your kind self
(a) I am a native of Baliganahalli village where I was working as BPM during the period cited in the memorandum of charges. At that time my father was suffering with cardiac problems. He has to be taken to hospital very frequently. During that time, I was engaged a boy who is my relative for my assistance in post office work, I use to take his held whenever I was going to Bengaluru taking my father for hospital.
(b) Most of my relatives (brothers of my father) are residing in Baliganahalli village and are not in good terms with my family due to land/property disputes. The boy who was engaged by me for postal work was instigated by by relatives and made him to commit some mistakes. I do not know the mistakes committed by him.
(c) I know that, engaging an outsider unauthorizedly to work in BO is not legally correct. But I have no other go as my position was forced me to do so. As only son, this is my duty to look after my aged father besides working in the post office for my livelihood. My financial position made me to engage an outsider who is my nearest relative. I never anticipated that he will made me a scapegoat.
(d) The mistakes happened at the Baliganahalli BO are not intentional and were happened at beyond my reach. 14
OA.No.170/00392/2021/CAT/BANGALORE Under the above circumstances, I have committed a mistake (made by others) and I have realized my self thereafter. Hence I request with your kind self to treat all the charges/articles levelled against me are 'not proved' and allow me to continue in the department.
For the above kind act of grace, I shall be ever grateful to you Sir."
14. Thus it is clear from the aforesaid letter that the applicant has not withdrawn the admission made by him regarding the charges levelled against him nor made any allegation that such admission was made by him owing to the persuasion made by the Inquiry Officer to bail him out in the matter. The admission of charges remains intact.
15. Rule 10 of the Rules and the proviso thereof reads thus:
"10. Procedure for imposing a penalty (1) No order imposing a penalty shall be passed except after -
(a) The Sevak is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegation on which it is proposed to be taken and given an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make; and
(b) Such representation, if any, is taken into consideration by the Recruiting Authority:15
OA.No.170/00392/2021/CAT/BANGALORE Provided that the penalty of dismissal or removal from engagement shall not be imposed except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges:
Provided further that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry.
(1) The record of proceedings shall include:-
(i) A copy of the intimation to the Sevak of the proposal to take action against him;
(ii) a copy of the statement of allegations, along with a list of evidence in support thereof, communicated to him
(iii) his representation, if any;
(iv) the records of the inquiry proceedings along with the inquiry report of the Recruiting Authority or Inquiry Officer, if any, appointed in a case where a formal inquiry is necessary;
(v) the representation, if any, of the Sevak on the Inquiry Officer's report
(vi) findings of the Recruiting Authority in respect of the allegations, with reasons therefor; and
(vii) the order imposing the penalty"
16. It is not in dispute that the applicant was informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of allegation 16 OA.No.170/00392/2021/CAT/BANGALORE of which it is proposed to be taken by issuing the charge memo and an opportunity was also given to make any representation he may wish to make. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that no penalty of removal from engagement could have been imposed cannot be countenanced since the charges were admitted by the applicant unconditionally in the preliminary inquiry. It is well-settled that the purpose of holding an inquiry is primarily to give the delinquent adequate opportunity to defend himself. In case the charge is accepted by him unconditionally, there would obviously be no need for further inquiry. This clarification is issued by the P.M.G., Madras, letter No. STC/5-18/80 dated 07.09.1983 and D.G., P&T Reply No. 10/4/83-Vig. III dated 10.10.1983. Holding an inquiry even if the delinquent official accepts the charges would be an empty formality.
17. The defence of the applicant that the lapses pointed out in the memo of articles of charges have been made by a Badli Worker engaged by him, at his responsibility, would not exonerate the applicant from the charges levelled against him once he has opted to admit all the articles of charges framed against him unequivocally. The applicant was the authorized sole incumbent to 17 OA.No.170/00392/2021/CAT/BANGALORE run Baliganahalli BO along with Masthi SO on the dates of malpractices made in the accounts in view of eMOs paid in the name of deceased payees. He is responsible to perform the statutory duties envisaged therein. It is strange and shocking to hear from the applicant about entrusting the work to the Badli Worker sans availing leave to remain away from the office. The applicant cannot point his fingers to an unauthorized stranger for fixing the responsibility in order to escape from the disciplinary action, as rightly observed by the Revisional Authority. Merely based on hyper-technicalities, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be held to be vitiated.
18. We find no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned orders impugned herein.
19. In the result, OA stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ksk/