Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
P S N Murthy vs Dept Of Posts on 23 July, 2021
OA/337/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
HYDERABAD
OA/21/337/2018 with MA/21/402/2018
Reserved on: 12.07.2021
Order Pronounced on: 23.07.2021
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judl. Member
Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Admn. Member
PSN. Murthy, S/o. Late P. Arumugam,
Aged about 60 years,
Occ: Retired Assistant Postmaster (HSG Grade-II),Gr. C,
Khairatabad Head Post Office, Hyderabad,
R/o. 13-226, III floor, Sri Rajarajeswarai Apts,
TRR Township, Meerpet, Hyderabad - 500 097.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Dr. A. Raghu Kumar)
Vs.
1. Union of India rep. by its
Director General,
M/o. Communications and Information Technology,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Telangana Circle, Dak Sadan, Hyderabad - 1.
3. The Postmaster General,
Hyderabad Headquarters Region, Hyderabad - 1.
4. The Director of Post Services,
O/o. Hyderabad Headquarters Region, Hyderabad -1.
5. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Hyderabad City Division, Hyderabad - 1.
....Respondents
(By Advocate :Sri K. Venkateswarlu, Addl. CGSC)
---
Page 1 of 15
OA/337/2018
ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Admn. Member)
2. The OA is filed challenging the Charge Memo dt.19.03.2018, which was served on him on 31.03.2018, the date of his superannuation.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant while working Dy. Post Master (for short DPM) in Higher Selection grade -II ( for short HSG -II) at Humayun Nagar Post office in the respondents organization, was directed to officiate as Sub Post Master (SPM) for a short period of 13 days in the years 2014 & 2015, with each spell not exceeding 5 days. Irregularities were noticed in regard to booking of Value Payable letter/Parcels (VPL/VPP) by Bulk Booking Centre (for short BBC) operational at the cited post office. For the irregularities noticed, applicant was issued a charge memo dated 19.3.2018 which was served on the last date of his retirement i.e. 31.3.2018. Aggrieved, the OA is filed.
4. The contentions of the applicant are that the Bulk Booking Centre (for short BBC) is not under the control of the applicant and that it is managed by Divisional/ circle office. Based on the irregularities detected, a CBI case was filed by the respondents on 31.7.2017 wherein the applicant was not shown as accused. Hence, a different view cannot be taken at the time of his retirement to fix him in a disciplinary case. R-5 is not competent to issue the charge sheet since the applicant belongs to the HSG-II for which the appointing authority is the Director of Postal Services (for short DPS). Applicant served the department for 38 years without any blemish. It would not be possible to have 100% control while working as SPM in short intervals. For the Business post office, contract labour are engaged on Page 2 of 15 OA/337/2018 piece rate basis and the supervisor is fully responsible for supervision of the related work and not the applicant. Depending on the turnover, the grade of the supervisor is decided, as for instance, if the turnover is between Rs.25 to 50 lakhs the BPO is monitored by ASP/ASRM/SSP/SSRM. By issue of the charge memo, retirement plans of the applicant have gone awry. Rule 14(2) and Rule 14 (3) have not been followed in letter and spirit. Applicant cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.V.Gopinath in support of his cause. Articles 14, 16, 21 & 311 of Constitution have been violated.
5. Respondents in the reply statement do confirm that the applicant worked as Officiating Sub Post Master (SPM) of Humayun Nagar Post officer for short spells in the years 2014 & 2015. During the period 11.09.2013 to 29.11.2013, a firm by name M/s. Prisha Pearls India Pvt Ltd booked VPL/VPP articles by affixing coloured Xerox of the franks, leading to a revenue loss of Rs.7.90 crores. Applicant while officiating as SPM has not exercised supervisor checks, thereby violated rule 67 of Postal Manual Volume-III. The standard operating procedure in booking the franked articles was not adhered to. As per Memo of distribution of work (for short MODW), DPM is the supervisor for booking of VPP/VPL articles booked by BBC. R-5 is competent to issue charge memo as per Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and schedule of disciplinary powers. BBC is a part of the Post office. Applicant not figuring in the CBI as accused is no bar to proceed against the applicant for supervisory lapses. Applicant has to follow rules even if the working spell is short. BBC is different from Business post office. Applicant failed to follow the rules and therefore after Page 3 of 15 OA/337/2018 the inquiry is completed, action in accordance with rules will be initiated. Without filing the defense for the charge memo issued on 19.3.2018, applicant approached the Tribunal. Disciplinary inquiry has been stayed by the Tribunal on 27.4.2018.
6. Heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings on record.
7. I. The dispute is about issue of charge memo dated 19.3.2018 to the applicant for alleged supervisory lapses and serving it on the date of retirement of the applicant i.e. 31.3.2018. The Articles of charge leveled against the applicant are as under:
ARTICLE - I "The said Sri P.S.N. Murthy, while working as Offg. SPM, Humayunnagar SO during the period from 24.11.2014 to 27.11.2014; 21.12.2014 to 24.12.2014; 03.11.2015 to 05.11.2015 and 18.11.2015 to 19.11.2015 allegedly did not exercise over all supervision as SPM on the work of bulk booking of VLPs by M/s. Prisha Pearls India P Ltd, at Humayunnagar SO, as required under Rule 67 of Postal Manual Volume III which resulted in huge loss of Rs.4,89,016/-, to the department by way of leakage revenue in bulk booking of VPLS/VPPs by M/s. Prisha Pearls India P Ltd, at Humayunnagar PO, thereby allegedly failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty, acted in a manner unbecoming of Government Servant, failed to maintain high ethical standards and honesty, failed to maintain accountability and transparency and failed to perform and discharge his duties with the highest degree of professionalism and dedication to the best of his abilities as required under Rule 3 (1) (i), (ii), (iii), (vi), (ix) and (xxi) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
ARTICLE - II The said Sri P.S.N. Murthy, while working as Dy. SPM, Humayunnagar SO during the period from 29.09.2014 to 21.11.2015 allegedly did not ensure collection of Statement of Mailing in respect of franked VPLS/VPPS presented for booking at Humayunnagar PO from M/s. Prisha Pearls India Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad as required under Rule 1(b) and 2(i) of Chapter 5 RMFM Standard Operating Procedure which resulted in huge loss of Rs.4,93,63,708/- to the department by way of leakage revenue in bulk booking of VPLS/VPPs by M/s. Prisha Pearls India P Ltd, at Humayunnagar PO, there by allegedly failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty, acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant, failed to maintain high ethical standards and Page 4 of 15 OA/337/2018 honesty, failed to maintain accountability and transparency and failed to perform and discharge his duties with the highest degree of professionalism and dedication to the best of his abilities as required under Rule 3 (1) (i), (ii), (iii), (vi), (ix) and (xxi) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
ARTICLE - III The said Sri P.S.N. Murthy, while working as Dy. SPM, Humayunnagar SO during the period from 29.09.2014 to 21.11.2015 allegedly did not maintain Record book of DPO in respect of franked VPLS/VPPS presented for booking at Humayunnagar PO by M/s. Prisha Pearls India Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad as required under Rule 2(j) of Chapter 5 RMFM Standard Operating Procedure, for verifying booked data and revenue realized and also did not reconcile the booking of bulk articles presented by M/s. Prisha Pearls India P Ltd on daily basis with revenue realized, which resulted in huge loss of Rs.4,93,63,708/- to the department by way of leakage revenue in bulk booking of VPLS/VPPs by M/s. Prisha Pearls India P Ltd, at Humayunnagar PO, thereby allegedly failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty, acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant, failed to maintain high ethical standards and honesty, failed to maintain accountability and transparency and failed to perform and discharge his duties with the highest degree of professionalism and dedication to the best of his abilities as required under Rule 3 (1) (i), (ii), (iii), (vi), (ix) and (xxi) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
ARTICLE - IV The said Sri P.S.N. Murthy, while working as Dy. SPM, Humayunnagar SO during the period from 29.09.2014 to 21.11.2015 allegedly did not carry out prescribed checks in r/o. bulk articles presented by M/s. Prisha Pearls India Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad at Humayunnagar SO as required under Rule 1(c) (i) (ii) of Chapter 5 RMFM Standard Operating Procedure, which facilitated the firm M/s. Prisha Pearls India P Ltd to post the VPLS/VPPS with duplicate franks (colour Xerox copy of frank) at Humayunnagar SO for booking of the articles which resulted in huge revenue loss of Rs.4,93,63,708/- to the department by way of leakage revenue in bulk booking of VPLS/VPPs by M/s. Prisha Pearls India P Ltd, at Humayunnagar PO, thereby allegedly failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty, acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant, failed to maintain high ethical standards and honesty, failed to maintain accountability and transparency and failed to perform and discharge his duties with the highest degree of professionalism and dedication to the best of his abilities as required under Rule 3 (1) (i), (ii), (iii), (vi), (ix) and (xxi) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964."
The applicant while working as DPM was directed to officiate as Sub Post Master, Humayun Nagar Post Office, for the following periods in the years 2014 and 2015 as under:
Page 5 of 15
OA/337/2018 i. 24.11.2014 to 27.11.2014, ii. 21.12.2014 to 24.12.2014, iii. 03.11.2015 to 05.11.2015 and iv. 18.11.2015 to 19.11.2015 The BBC operating at the Humayun Nagar Post office irregularly booked VPP/VPL articles of M/s. Prisha Pearls with colour Xerox of franks affixed on the articles, leading to a revenue loss of Rs.7.90 crores. The period for which the applicant worked as officiating SPM, the firm referred to has irregularly booked 19560 articles leading to a revenue loss of Rs.4,89,016 and for the period for which the applicant worked as DPM from 29.9.2014 to 21.11.2015 the revenue loss due to irregular booking of articles is Rs.4.93 crores. These figures have been given in the reply statement and the applicant has not refuted the same by way of rejoinder.
II. The contention of the applicant is that BBC was not under his control but under the Divisional/Circle office and therefore he cannot be held responsible. The applicant has not produced any document to affirm his claim that BBC is under the control of Divisional or circle office.
Therefore, the averment of the respondents that BBC is a part of the post office stands valid. On the contrary, the MODW, which is the approved duty chart, clearly specifies that the DPM has to supervise booking of VPL/VPP articles and ensure proper maintenance of related records. The relevant portion of the MODW is extracted here under:
"To be Incharge of all counters SB, MO Issue, TRC (BSNL), Registered/ Parcel, VPL/VPP Insured articles, registered news papers, franking machines articles, bulk booking. To maintain petty stock register in connection with items of dock. To ensure checking Page 6 of 15 OA/337/2018 of day to day posting of statistics by all counters PAs working under him. He should ensure that surplus cash is periodically collected from the counters by the Treasurer. To ensure neatness and tidiness in the counters. To ensure that statistical register and due returns are maintained and submitted in due time. He is Incharge of the Office in split duty hours of the Postmaster."
Therefore, it is clear that the applicant is the supervisor for conducting supervisory checks of VPL/VPP articles and that BBC is under the control of Humayun Nagar Post office where the said articles were booked. In fact, during split hours he holds the fort on every working day. The alleged irregularities have occurred in the booking of VPP/VPL articles of M/s.Prisha Pearls during the period 29.9.2014 to 21.11.2015,causing a revenue loss of Rs.4.93 crores when the applicant has worked as regular DPM and another loss of Rs.4.89 lakhs when he worked as officiating SPM for a period of 13 days in 2014 & 2015. The applicant is expected to supervise the booking of VPP/VPLs as per rules and for supervisory lapse, Rule 67 of Postal Manual Volume-III prescribes a serious view to be taken. The relevant clause is reproduced here under:
"Action against supervisory officers
67. The laxity on the part of the supervisory officials should be viewed as seriously as the negligence on the part of the operative staff. Sometimes, the laxity on the part of the supervisory officials may have to be viewed more seriously as there may be extenuating circumstances like the pressure of crowd waiting at the counter, insufficiency of light etc. in the case of an operative staff. A supervisory official who works in the comparative seclusion of the inner sanctuary of an office cannot complain of such difficulties. The failure on the part of supervisory official to go round the office and exercise a personal watch over the operative staff should also be given due consideration in cases of frauds etc."Page 7 of 15
OA/337/2018 III. Loss to the Post office in terms of revenue is loss to the Public exchequer and it is a matter of grave concern. Applicant may have to own the responsibility, for the reason that, had he applied the supervisory checks ordained in the rules and ensured that Standard Operating Procedure in respect of franking articles using Remotely Managed Franking Machine was adopted, the irregularities could have been nipped in the bud, thereby curbing the loss in crores, as reported by the respondents. It was not to be and hence the charge memo in question.
IV. The applicant contending that R-5 ie Senior Supdt of Post Offices (SSP), is not competent to issue the charge sheet to the applicant will not hold ground, since as per the schedule of powers of disciplinary authority as prescribed under Postal Manual Vol-III, the SSP as disciplinary authority can initiate disciplinary action and impose minor penalties specified under clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The appropriate clause of the Postal Manual and the Rule 11 are reproduced hereunder:
a. Schedule of disciplinary powers:
Authority competent to impose Appellate Authority penalties and penalties which it may impose (with reference to item numbers in rule 11) Description of Appointing Authority Penalties service Authority 1 2 3 4 5 Post Offices Postmaster in Director of Director of Postal All Postmaster-General Higher and Postal Services Member (P) Postal Lower Selection Services Board Grades;
Ministerial Staff in Higher and Lower Selection Grades.
Senior (i) to (iv) Director of Postal
Superintendent Services
Page 8 of 15
OA/337/2018
Gazetted (i) to (iv) Director of Postal
Postmaster including Services (in circles
gazetted Sub under the charge of
Postmaster; Postmaster General);
Superintendent of Deputy Director (in
Post Offices other circles)
Deputy Presidency (i) to (iv) Presidency
Postmaster; Postmaster;
Deputy Postmaster Postmaster in the
in the Postmaster's Grade of Presidency
Service, Class II Postmaster.
Gazetted All Director of Postal
Postmaster including Services
Gazetted Sub
Postmaster under
the control of Senior
Superintendent
b. Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules
"11. Penalties
The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely :-
Minor Penalties -
(i) censure;
(ii) withholding of his promotion;
(iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders;
(iii) (a) reduction to lower stage in the time-scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension.
(iv) withholding of increments of pay;
V. Further, Rule 13 (1) (b) of CCS (CCA) Rules, reproduced herein below, read with Rule 11 referred to above, makes it explicit that SSP is competent to issue the charge sheet and impose minor penalties. In case, if a major penalty is to be imposed, then the matter would have to be referred to the Director of Postal Services, who is the Appointing Authority in respect of HSG- II officials. The case has not arrived at the stage of deciding the penalty, in view of the stay granted by the Tribunal on 27.04.2018.
Page 9 of 15
OA/337/2018 Rule 13 (1) (b) "13. Authority to institute proceedings (1) The President or any other authority empowered by him by general or special order may -
(a) xxxx
(b) direct a disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant on whom that disciplinary authority is competent to impose under these rules any of the penalties specified in rule 11."
Therefore, the contention of the applicant that the R-5 is not competent to issue the charge memo is not maintainable. Consequently, since SSP is competent to issue the charge memo, the B.V.Gopinath judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by the applicant would not come to his rescue.
VI. One another contention raised by the applicant is that there is a delay of 3 years in issuing the charge sheet. The matter after due investigation and on cent percent verification of records of Humayunnagar post office to detect if there were any other frauds, respondents can then take steps to initiate disciplinary action against those responsible. This would take some time given the magnitude of the fraud of Rs 7.90 crores and the voluminous records to be verified involving operations across the length and breadth of the country. Hence the delay is a justifiable systemic delay and cannot be brushed aside. Law permits issue of charge sheet even if there is some delay, for justifiable reasons. Hence the action of the respondents is within the domain of law.
Page 10 of 15
OA/337/2018 The Ld. Applicant Counsel's fervent submissions that finding fault with the applicant for working for a few days as officiating SPM, does not find favour, because the irregularities were committed even when the applicant worked as regular DPM and the amount of loss is significant enough, calling for due notice to be taken as per disciplinary rules. The Ld Counsel further submitted that the lapse is procedural in nature and is not a grave misconduct so as to issue a rule 14 charge memo. The loss to the public exchequer is Rs.7.09 crores which is huge and not following the rules prescribed in checking the booking of VPL/VPP articles, as to whether proper revenue is being collected in the way it ought to be, for years together cannot be written off as a procedural lapse but assumes the colour and character of misconduct. The ambit of misconduct has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, regard being had to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve.Rule 3 of conduct rules states that every member of the Central service shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. Rules 4 to 18 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules prescribe code of conduct for members of service and it can be safely stated that an act or omission contrary to or in breach of prescribed rules of conduct would constitute misconduct for disciplinary proceedings. It is in this context the issue of charge memo dated 19.3.2018 issued by the respondents has to be viewed and not in the narrow plane of procedural lapse, more so when the loss to the public exchequer is enormous. If unchecked, it would send a wrong signal to other employees that they need not be serious about the responsibilities to be discharged by them.
Page 11 of 15
OA/337/2018 Further, applicant not being shown as an accused in the case registered by CBI in RC no 14 (A) 2017 on 31.7.2017, pertaining to the irregularities in booking of VPP/VPL articles, would not immunize the applicant from being proceeded on disciplinary grounds for supervisory lapses. A Govt. servant has to perform his duty as per rules and for any dereliction of duties the consequences of a disciplinary action are inevitable. Applicant can be no exception to the same.
VII. The averment made in regard to the Business Post Office (BPO) is not relevant since BBC and BPO are two different entities with different operational approaches and rules. Applicant failed to conduct the supervisory checks of the BBC in booking VPL/VPP as per MODW and hence was issued charge memo dated 19.3.2018, by the competent disciplinary authority.
Other contentions made by the both the parties have been perused and found them to be irrelevant.
VIII. It is also not out place to adduce that the Tribunal should not interfere at the stage of issue of charge sheet or show cause notice as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in A ... vs Registrar Cooperative Societies on 12 June, 2017 in CA/18836/2016, by relying on a number of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments as under:
XXX For the purpose reference of following cases are material;
(1) 2006 (12) SCC 28 between Union of India and Kunisetty Satyanarayana. It would be appropriate to recollect the following paragraphs;Page 12 of 15
OA/337/2018 "12. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in allowing the Writ Petition.
13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another AIR 1987 SC 943 etc.
14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show- cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.
15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet."
(2) 2004 (3) SCC 440 between Special Director and Mhd. Ghulam Ghouse.
Para 5 from this case is relevant, which is as under "5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless, HC-NIC Page 11 of 74 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:45:55 IST 2017 the High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show cause notice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the Court. Further, when the Court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection, granted."
Page 13 of 15
OA/337/2018 Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in A.Ananthakumar vs The Registrar General on 20 December, 2019 in W.P.No.30961 of 2019, relying on a catena of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, held as under:
7. The law regarding the power of a Writ Court to interfere at the stage of charge memo while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, has observed as under:-
"13.It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show- cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh[(1996) 1 SCC 327 : JT (1995) 8 SC 331] ,Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse[(2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC 1467] ,Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore[(2001) 10 SCC 639] ,State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma[(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] , etc.
14.The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-
sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. "
In view of the said judgment, this Court at this juncture is not inclined to go into the correctness or otherwise of the charge memo."
Therefore, in view of the law laid by the superior judicial fora as at above, the Tribunal should not intervene at the stage of charge memo and cannot be a part of the process of stalling the disciplinary inquiry. As held in the judgments cited there is no prejudice caused to the applicant by issue Page 14 of 15 OA/337/2018 of the charge memo dated 19.3.2018 and on the contrary the respondents may take a view depending on the findings of the disciplinary inquiry, which could be reasonably favourable to the applicant.
IX. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, we do not find any scope to intervene on behalf of the applicant, as the respondents' decision to issue the charge memo is in accordance with rules and law.
X. We thus have no choice but to dismiss the OA, as being devoid of merit. The interim order passed on 27.4.2018 resultantly stands vacated. MA No. 402/2018 stands disposed. No order as to costs.
(B.V.SUDHAKAR) (ASHISH KALIA)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/evr/
Page 15 of 15