Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
P Mamatha vs Dept Of Posts on 8 August, 2017
'lI
-.o-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATI AL :. HYDERABAD BENCH AT HYDERABAD Original Application No. 151 of 201-6 Date of order : 08-08-201-7 Between:
Smt .P. Mamatha W/o late Sri P. Suresh, (Ex-GDS/BPM, Kondapaka B.O.), Aged about 25 years, R/o Madaka Village, a/w Pothkapalli-505 152, Peddapalli Division, Karimnaga,rDistrict (T.S.), ....Applicant AND
1. Union of lndia, represented by The Director General, Posts, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-1.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad.
3. The Postmaster General, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Peddapalli Division, Peddapalli-505 172, District Karimnagar.
5. The lnspector, Posts, Jammikunta Sub-Division, Jammikur{a-505 122, District Karimnagar. ....Respondents Counsel for the Applicant Mr. B. Gurudas Counsel for the Respondents Mr. A.Surender Reddy, Addl.CGSC CORAM :
THE HON,BLE MRS. MINNIE MATHEW : MEMBER (A) T (Oral order per Hon'ble Mrs.Minnie Mathew, Member (A) ) Heard Mr.B.Gurudas, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.A.Surender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.
2. The applicant is aggrieved by the Annexure A-ll order dated 19.06.2015 as per which her case has not been recommended for compassionate engagement forthe post of Gramin Dak Sevak. The applicant submits that her husband late Sri P.Suresh was placed under "put off" duty by the 5th Respondent on 08.01.2013 on I A, the ground that Disciplinary Proceedings were being contemplated against hi However, he committed suicide and died on 11.01.2013. As a result, charge memo was not issued during his life time and there were no allegations stating that her late husband's service record was unsatisfactory. After the death of her husband, the applicant submitted her application on 08.09.2014 to the 2nd Respondent for considering her case for compassionate appointment in the place of her deceased husband. The 4th Respondent issued the impugned order dated 19.06.2015 stating that her case was rejected by Circle Relaxation Committee which met on 03.06.2015. However no reasons were assigned for rejecting her case for compassionate appointment. Thereupon the applicant, under the provisions of Right to lnformation Act, sought the reasons for rejection of her case from the office of Respondent No.2. ln response to her application, the 2nd Respondent has informed as follows :-
"(i). Your case is not recommended by the Circle Relaxation Committee met on 03.06.2015.
(ii). The deceased GDS official has not rendered UNBLEMISHED SERVICE and he has committed fraud of Rs.48,610/- in SB/PLI/RPLI Accounts.
Hence the case has not been recommended by the Competent Authority.
(iii) Listenclosed(Recommended).
(iv) Merit points awarded to the applicant are 85 points.
(v) Merit points secured by the last meritorious candidate in the list of cases recommended for engagement is 54 points.
(vi) NO. The case was not recommended due to fraud committed by the deceased GDS official."
3. The applicant submits that there is no mention in the minutes of Circle Relaxation Committee which met on 03.06.2015 that her husband's record of 2 e, N t;,
-g' \ t/ ) service was blemished in any manner She a lso states that the Annexure A-Vll letter of the Director General dated 09.12.2005 states that, "..... where a Gramin Dak Sevak put-off from duty dies during the pendency of a disciplinary case, penalty prescribed under the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 cannot be imposed. Therefore the disciplinary proceedings shall cease immediately on the death of such GDS." ln these circumstances, the ground of 'blemished record' will not be sustainable. Learned counsel for the applicant also drew attention to the fact that the merit points secured by the last meritorious candidate was 54 points, whereas the applicant had been awarded 85 points which itself would establish the indigence of the applicant.
4. ln their reply statement, the Respondents have stated that, late P. Suresh, while working as GDSBPM, Kondapaka 8.O., Veenavanka S.O., during the period from May, 2010 to November, 2072, had committed fraud to the tune of Rs.48,610/- in Recurring Deposit (RD), Savings Bank (SB) accounts and in Rural Postal lnsurance Policies (RPLI) opened at Kondapaka B.O. He was therefore kept under 'put-off ' duty and died on 11.01.2013 while he was under 'put-off ' duty. The Respondents submit that the applicant's husband has credited an amount of Rs.11,000/- on 07.01.2013 towards the amount defrauded by him and that the applicant also credited an amount of Rs.40,000/- on 02.02.2013 towards the amount defrauded by her late husband. They submit that, had late P. Suresh been alive, he would have faced disciplinary proceedings under Rule-10 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011. Hence the applicant's case for compassionate appointment was not recommended by Circle Relaxation 3 ,L Committee which met on 03.06.20L5. The Respondents have drawn attention to \ri-" l-
the letter dated 13.01.2006 of the Department of Posts which stipulates that persons working as GDS should have impeccable integrity and that the condition of unblemished record of service of a GDS for considering compassionate appointment would certainly be deterrent against committing any financial irregularities. lt has also been stated in the said letter that the GDSs are required to have alternate source of income which can also be relied upon by the families of the deceased GDSs. The Respondents refuted the applicant's contention that the applicant's late husband had rendered 'unblemished' service. They stated that he had started committing fraud just after putting in 7 months of service.
5. Respondents also conceded that the Annexure A-ll rejection of the applicant's case for compassionate appointment dated 19.06.2015 was inadvertently not communicated by the 4th Respondent. The Respondents also conceded that as per the point system, the applicant was awarded 85 points but since her late husband had not rendered 'unblemished' service, the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected by the Circle Relaxation Committee. They also relterated that, for appointment on compassionate grounds, the deceased GDS should have clean record of service and that the case of the applicant was rejected on the ground that her husband had not rendered'unblemished' service.
6. The applicant filed rejoinder stating that the Circle Relaxation Committee had neither communicated order of rejection nor passed any speaking order and that the applicant credited the amounts to the department on the promise made k, 4 to her that her case wou ld be considered for compassionate appointment f avou rablY. I d?.) :o VilTY \ I .,) learned counsel for the
7. When the case was taken up for hearing' the placed under'put-off'duty and that applicant argued that the applicant was only no'NochargesheetWaSissuedbytheCompetentAuthorityandresultantlyno provisions of GDS (Conduct misconduct has been established under the relevant andEmployment)Rules,20ll.HealsoreliedontheordersofKarnatakaHigh Allahabad High Court in Court in Vijaya Bank Vs. Smt'T'D'Jayamma and and the High Court of Andhra Smt.Rajeswari Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh PradeshinZonalManager,StateBankofHyderabadVs.Saileelawherein heirs for compassionate directions have been passed to consider the case of legal appointmentinaccordancewithlawevenwhereDisciplinaryProceedingsagainst thedeceasedemployeehavebeeninitiatedagainstthedeceasedemployee. S.Percontra,learnedStandingCounselfortheRespondentsdrewattention vide their to the fact that the Department of Posts had given clear instructions letter dated 13.01.2006 on the need for strictly complying with the requirement of of ,satisfactory record' of service for considering compassionate appointment the dependants of deceased Gramin Dak Sevaks'
9. lhave considered the rival submissions and also perused the record. The impugned order dated 19.05.2015 which is under challenge is clearly an unreaSoned and non-speaking order which has not given any reasons for rejecting the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment. The Respondents 5 4) ,,1- contend that the Circle Relaxation Committee which met on 03.0G.2015 had t _c rejected the case of the applicant on the ground that her deceased husband had blemished record of service. But the impugned Annexure A-2 proceedings does not contain even a whisper that the applicant's case has been rejected on the aforesaid ground. The law is well settled that every administrative decision must contain all the reasons which prevailed while taking the decision and that the Government cannot improve its stand by filing subsequent affidavits. Therefore the reasons which are not mentioned in the minutes of the Circle Relaxation Committee cannot be supplemented by way of a reply affidavit.
10. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant's husband has only been placed under 'put off duty' vide Annexure A-4, contemplating disciplinary proceedings against him. Before these proceedings could be taken to its logical conclusion, he has died. Thus the Disciplinary Proceedings could not be completed and the guilt or otherwise of the GDS employee has not been established. Without an enquiry being conducted under the provisions of the Rules and without the charge being held proved, the Respondents have erred in rejecting the applicant's case only on the ground that her late husband had a blemished record of service. The Hon'ble High Courts have already held that, the pendency of disciplinary proceedings at the time of the death of the employee cannot disqualify or make the dependents ineligible for compassionate appointment. ln Vijaya Bank Vs. Smt. T.D.Jayamma, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held as follows :
"1. The Vijaya Bank, Bangalore, being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated March 3, 2000, in Writ Petition No.1963 of 2000 has preferred this aPPeal.
_,/1 n dt_, 6 the grounds of appeal' read as follows :
he facts, as set out by the bank in I "Smt. Jayamma, respondent herein on the death of her husband who was *"rfi"g'i, the appellant-bank' applied to the bank seeking her appointment on compassionate grounds in the bank' Since disciplinary the deceased employee of the bank' Or"*"0,.*t had been initiated 'giinttthe bank referred the matter to the i.e., the husband of Smt' Jayamma' Government for approval of appointment of the respondent on formulated by the bank for compassionate grounds as per the Scheme appointment of the dependants of the deceased employee on comPassionate grounds' The Central Government did not approve the appointment of the Therefore' the bank' vide its letter respondent on compassionate grounds
-p"r dated March 25, tggS (ts annexure K)' communicated to the on compassionate grounds respondent that her request for appointment hasnotbeenconsideredbytheMinistryofFinanceandthe was rejected'"
recommendation of the appellant-bank is the non-
2. ln effect, what is under challenge before this Court approval by the Central Government of the appointment of the first respondentoncompassionategrounds.Thelearnedsingle.iudgeallowed the Writ Petition and directed the bank to give an appointment to the first on compassionate grounds on the respondent, the wife of the deceased recommendation made bY the bank' The action of the second respondent in not approving the recommendation made by the first respondent for appointment of the must be termed as p.ri,lon.r, in the facts and circumstances of the case' of the right guaranteed to the highly arbitrary, unreasonable and vlolative 14 of the Constitution of lndia' ln my view' I am f"1iiion", under Article also supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Saroja M.F. SALDANHA J iiiurt rrn* v. state Bank of Mysore 1996 (90) FtR 226, Under similar circumstances has taken the view I have taken above' lt is useful to extract of the said judgment' which reads as follows :
"The last question that arises is as to whether the bank was justified in for compassionate employment' having refused to consider the application that lam constrained to It is in regard to this area as also the earlier ones observethatthisCourtmostunequivocallypointouttopub|icinstitutions thatitisessentialthattheofficerstakingthesedecisionsshouldfunction like human beings and not like a bunch of zombies'"
".....lneedtoexaminewhetherthebankwasjustifiedinitsreasoningthatif proceedings which may have been Sflirat um., by virtue of the disciplinary against him was relegated to the inconclusive but which was pending 1 position of a tainted employee and, therefore, his son was disqualified from , , asking for compassionate employment is sustainable. One needs to take cognizance of the fact that I have already held that the charges were never proved and that the correct position in law as far as such situation where the enquiry has abated is categorisation of Shlvakumar was not permissible. There is an additional reason for this in so far as it needs to be pointed out that misconduct is something absolutely personal and it is for this reason that the consequences of misconduct, namely, punishment, can be visited only on the employee. This is a unique situation in which the respondents contend that the misdeeds of the father can be visited on the son. ln the first instance, misdeeds were never established but more importantly, there can be no question of transfer or vicarious liability in these circumstances and, therefore, it was wholly impermissible for the bank to have taken these circumstances into consideration."
11. ln the instant case even disciplinary proceedings have not been initiated against the applicant's husband. Thus applying the aforesaid ratio, the applicant cannot be held to be ineligible on this ground. Further the fact that the applicant and her late husband credited Rs.40,000/- and Rs.11,000/- respectively to the department cannot disqualify the applicant's case or attach any stigma to her application for compassionate appointment. Therefore the ground of "blemished record of Service" cited for rejection of the applicant's case for compassionate appointment is untenable and out rightly rejected. L2. Further, as admitted by the Respondents in their reply statement the applicant has been awarded 85 merit points as against the 54 points secured by the last meritorious case in the list of candidates recommended for compassionate appointment. This is a clear admission of the indigence of the applicant and her justified claim for compassionate appointment.
13. ln the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. There shall be a direction to the Respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant without 8 41 reference to the allegedly blemished record of the applicant's late husband and place the same before the circle Relaxation committee for a fresh consideration in the light of the observations made in paras - 9 to 12 (supra)' 1,4. Time granted for compliance is three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
5Ffiqa na
CEHTIFIED TRUE GOPI
*ffir* -oA,/51.//C
*'-''-' -
i",i.. alg|tl
xleln
;lrf.tq xrrwi:F-tt sdfuq,it:or
tiintrer AdrninlsiratFue Tribunai
iT{rqq effi *6i }l}-detabe c 3e nc :-
Tree 0og uR zz ct
CAT (Proecr* rra\ r""l,.('r
9