Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R Anbalagan vs M/O Communications on 30 July, 2024
1 OA No.310/00424/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00424/2016
Dated this 30th day of July, Two Thousand Twenty Four
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI,MEMBER(A)
AND
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER(J)
R. Anbalagan,
S/o Ramalingam,
No.2/98, East Street,
Athigudi Village,
Lalgudi Taluk,
Tiruchirappali District, ...Applicant
By Advocate M/s. R. Malaichamy
Vs
1. Union of India
rep by the
Senior Superintendent of Post offices,
Tiruchirappali Division,
Tiruchirappalli.
2. Assistant Superintendent of Post offices & ADA,
Tiruchirappali East Sub - Division,
Tiruchirappalli
3. Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices,
Lalgudi Sub - Division,
Lalgudi ...Respondents
By Advocate Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC
2 OA No.310/00424/2016
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:
"(i) To call for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to his order which is made in NO.ADA/GDS MD/MC-Athigudi/2015, dated 24.03.2015, and the order of the 1st respondent made in Memo No.APP/2/2015-16/2015, dated 30.12.2015 and set aside the same consequent to;
(ii) Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service with all service benefits and;
(iii To pass such further or other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:
The applicant, a GDS MD/MC at the Athigudi BO, was issued a Rule 10 Charge sheet, on 30.12.2010, for allegedly scolding an authority during an RPLI drive meeting, on 03.10.2009. He denied the charges, but, during the inquiry led by the 2nd respondent, he was unwell and requested for a defense assistant, which was not granted. The inquiry was completed in a hurried manner and the applicant was unable to submit his written brief or respond to the Inquiry Officer's report due to his illness. He further submits that without giving him reasonable opportunity, the applicant was 3 OA No.310/00424/2016 dismissed from service on 24.03.2015 by the 2nd respondent, and his appeal was rejected on 30.12.2015 by the 1st respondent. The applicant contends that the punishment was disproportionate to the alleged offence and has filed the present OA (Original Application) challenging the dismissal.
3 The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was not afforded reasonable opportunity to nominate his defence assistant on his behalf to defend him during the Rule 10 inquiry. The inquiry officer has not conducted inquiry in a manner known to law. Hence, the action of the IO is against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order, imposing major punishment on the applicant, is liable to be set aside.
4. He further contended that, as per the charge sheet, it has been stated that 116 GDS officials had participated in the RPLI meeting on 03.10.2009, but only 3 GDS officials were enquired against and statement were obtained form them, and, the remaining 113 GDS employees were not proceeded against and brought before the IO by the prosecution side to prove the allegations against the applicant, as set out in the charge sheet. In Annexure II of the charge sheet, it does not include the name of any PA or name of Mail overseer in support of the allegations against him. 4 OA No.310/00424/2016 Hence, it is evident that the 2nd respondent got his desired result against the applicant by getting statements by choosing his known persons supporting his predetermined decision.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, by referring to the reply statement, vehemently opposed the submission of the applicant and contended that, though there was no financial loss to the Department, the applicant had behaved in a way unbecoming of a GDS. The applicant had attended the RPLI meeting in an intoxicated condition, and had used unparliamentary words against his superiors, and had gone to the extent of assaulting them in the open meeting and, above all, he had failed to maintain the decorum, discipline, obedience, as expected of a layman, at least, but had tarnished the very image of the renowned Postal Department. Therefore, the applicant was awarded the penalty commensurate with his inexcusable misbehaviour. He further contended that the applicant is a person not to be retained in the Department and, hence, a right penalty was imposed by the ADA which was, subsequently, confirmed on appeal by the 1st respondent.
6. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was punished for his immoral /unruly behavior with superior officers when a meeting was organized among the officials to promote a scheme of the 5 OA No.310/00424/2016 Department. The applicant's case had been amply proved in the Inquiry through oral and documentary evidence, after which the penalty, quite commensurate with the charge against him, was awarded.
7. The learned counsel relied upon the following judgements:
(i) Ram Briksha Singh Vs State of UP in WP No.47921 of 2005 of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.
(ii) Orissa Cement Limited Vs Adikando Sahi reported in (1960) 1 LLJ/0260518 of the Hon'ble Apex Court
(iii) New Shorrock Mills Vs Maheshbhai T. Rao reported in (1996) 6 SCC 590 For the aforesaid contentions, supported by the judgments cited supra, the learned counsel for the respondents pleaded for dismissal of the OA.
8. The applicant has filed a rejoinder reiterating the contentions made in the OA.
9. We have heard both the parties, at length, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record and the decisions relied upon by the respective parties.
10. It is seen that the applicant was issued a Charge Sheet, under Rule 10 of the GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001, by the 2 nd 6 OA No.310/00424/2016 respondent in Memo, dated 30.12.2010. The crux of the charges as set out in the Charge Sheet are as follows:
"While working as GDS MD/MC, Athigudi BO A/w Anbil So, he attended RPLI drive meeting of all offifials (Deptl/GDS) of Lalgudi Sub Division on 0.310.2009 held at Dalmia Higher Secondary School, Kallakudi. The meeting was conducted by Shri S. Sankar, IPO, (PG), O/o SSPO's, Tiruchirappalli Division, Tiruchirappalli. Shri K. Arunachalam, ASPO;s (HQ) O/o SSPO's Tiruchirappalli also participated in the meeting and spoke about the RPLI scheme and the necessity of achieving the RPLI target fixed for 2009-2010. During the meeting the said Shri R. Anbagalagan, GDS MD/MC who was sitting in the back row talked in loud voide and cause disturbances to the meeting that he was in intoxicated condition that he came to the stage without the permission of IPO (PG) or ASP and spoke about bad about RPLI scheme and talked ill of Shri K. Arunachalam, ASP, (HQ) using discourteous words against him not to talk like that, Shri R. Anbalagan GDS MD/MC, utterly misbehaved with ASP, HQ, in the presence of all the officials.... Shri R. Anbalagan further attempted to assault Shri K. Arunachalam, ASP (HQ) and when Shri S. Sankar, IPO (PG), came to the rescue of Shri K. Arunachalam, ASP HQ, Shri R. Anbalagan, put his arm on the chese of Shri S. Sankar and pushed his aside telling....................."
Therefore, an inquiry was ordered to be conducted by appointing the 2 nd respondents as Ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority who has appointed the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer to conduct the inquiry against the applicant. It is clearly established during the inquiry that the charged GDS (the applicant) exhibited the misbehavior through his attitude. Further, the charged GDS did not submit anything against the Charge 7 OA No.310/00424/2016 Memo and the Inquiry Report, which shows that the applicant had nothing to represent against the Inquiry Officer's Report and agreed with the findings in the Inquiry Report. It is also seen that the applicant had admitted his misbehaviour which had taken place on 03.10.2009, during the preliminary investigation. The activities of the applicant had not only tarnished the entire image of the renowned Postal Department but also eroded the faith, discipline, obedience and confidence of the charged GDS. Hence, if the applicant continues asGDS, maintenance of discipline cannot be expected from him. As the action of the delinquent/applicant requires deterrent punishment, the Disciplinary Authority (ADA) imposed the punishment of removal from service.
11. It is also seen that the applicant has filed an Appeal to the 1 st the respondent, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, who, after considering the points raised by the applicant in his appeal, observed that the proven charge against the appellant is grave in nature. He has tarnished the whole image of the renowned Department. There is no self- discipline on the part of the applicant. He has failed to maintain decorum in the meeting, thereby, bringing disrepute to the Department. It is all his own making. The penalty imposed on the applicant was commensurate with the gravity of the charge. Hence, the appeal was rejected by the 1st respondent, holding that the Disciplinary Authority (ADA) has passed rational and speaking order.
8 OA No.310/00424/2016
13. With regard to the maintenance of discipline in the work place, we may refer to the judgment, dated 23.07.2012, of the Allahabad High Court. In the case of Ram Briksha Singh Vs State of UP in WP No.47921 of 2005, relied upon by the respondents, the Hon'ble High Court held as follows:
"It may be mentioned here that any system works if there is discipline. If the discipline goes, the system cannot work and bound to be collapsed. It is expected from the Government servants to maintain discipline, respect their seniors and act within the norms. The opinion may vary but no one has a right to break the discipline. In the present case, the petitioner has broken the norms, crossed the limit of discipline and interfered in the checking/ proceeding for which he was not authorised and used abusive language against the officers. Such things cannot be tolerated. If such act is allowed to continue, the whole system will collapse. Inquiry or checking will become impossible which is integrated part of the system to work".
14. In the case of Orissa Cement Limited Vs Adikando Sahi reported in (1960) 1 LLJ/0260518, dated 30.04.1959, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"Besides the words used by the respondent in abusing the labour officer, not once but twice without any provocation are absolutely indecent and vulgar and in such a case, he could not be kept in its employment a person who was capable of such indecent conduct, it would be justified in dismissing him"
15. In the case of New Shorrock Mills Vs Maheshbhai T. Rao reported in (1996) 6 SCC 590, dated 25.10.1996, the Hon'ble Apex 9 OA No.310/00424/2016 Court held as follows:
"It appears to us that the Labour Court completely misdirected itself in ordering the respondent's reinstatement with forty per cent back wages. The Labour Court was exercising jurisdiction under Section 78 f the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. It had the jurisdiction, inter alia, to decide the disputes regarding the propriety and legality of an order passed by an employer acting or purporting to act under the Standing Orders. The Labour Court, in the present case, having come to the conclusion that the finding of the departmental inquiry was legal, and proper, respondent's order of discharge was not by way of victimisation and that the respondent workman had seriously misbehaved and was thus guilty of misconduct, ought not to have interfered with the punishment which was awarded, in the manner it did. This is not a case where the court could come to the conclusion that the punishment which was awarded was shockingly disproportionate to the employee's conduct and his past record."
16. It is clearly established in the inquiry that the applicant had seriously misbehaved with the superior officers in the RPLI Meeting, on 03,.10.2009, and the evidence let in during the inquiry proved the charges levelled against him. Becuase of lack of self discipline on his part, the applicant has failed to maintain decorum in the meeting. The said act of the applicant undoubtedly tarnished the image of the Department. Further, as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, an employee who was capable of such indecent conduct and behaviour, especially with the higher officials, could not be kept in employment, and the employer would be justified in dismissing the applicant from service. 10 OA No.310/00424/2016
17. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority (ADA) as well as the Appellate Authority, challenged in the OA. The applicant miserably fails to make out a case for the relief prayed for by him.
18. In the result, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(M. SWAMINATHAN) (VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)
30. 07. 2024
mas