Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R Madhan vs D/O Post on 28 May, 2024
RTL AR i URE ty i te aT te i OA No.310/00145/2018 "CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH 0OA/310/00145/2018 Dated this 2 gh of May, Two Thousand Twenty Four CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI,MEMBER(A) AND HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER(S) R. Madhan, S/o Raju, No.5/128, New Colony, Venampatti Road, Dharmapuri By Advocate M/s. R. Malaichamy 1.Union of India rep by the Postmaster General, Western Region (TN), Coimbatore. 2.The Director of Postal Services, O/o Postmaster General, Western Region (TN), Coimbatore. 3.The Superintendent of Post Offices, Dharmapuri Division, Dharmapuri. By Advocate Mr. 8, Nagarajan .. Applicant Vs. .. Respondents ma S 2 OA No.310/00145/2018 ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) The OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"J.to call for the records of the 2™ respondent pertaining to his order which is made in Memo No.CPT/PLD/Dly dated 05.08.2015 and the order of 2" respondent made in Memo No. STB/15-309/2017 dated 27.10.2017 and set aside the same; consequent to,
2. direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service with all attendant benefits; and
3. to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:
The applicant, who worked as a Postman at Palacode SO, faced unjust actions from the Postmaster, Shri A. Arun, who seemed to hold a grudge for unknown reasons. When the applicant's father fell ill and was hospitalized on July 1, 2014, the applicant took leave but sadly his father passed away on July 2, 2014. After attending the funeral and related services until July 10, 2014, the applicant returned to work on July 11, 2014. However, the Postmaster, with premeditated intent, accused the applicant of consuming liquor on that day without any proof and had him suspended based on a doctor's certificate that mentioned the applicant 1 OE STEPS E Ite, lt aa ne eee aria oe ae eit UR SU eC RU LR ee, Sees DARI UO Mea a Se Se ee hee Perec aELS 3 OA No.310/00145/2018 "consumed liquor but is not under its influence". Later, while posted at Kadathur SO, the applicant was issued a charge sheet on May 13, 2015, alleging that he falsely claimed to deliver Speed Post Articles to specific individuals. The inquiry into these charges seemed rushed and unfair, with the applicant feeling pressured and misled into admitting to the charges.
Despite this, the inquiry officer found the charges proven solely on the applicant's admission, without examining prosecution witnesses. Due to personal tragedies, including the death of his mother, the applicant was under immense pressure. When he requested for time to respond to the inquiry report before any action was taken, his request was accepted, but surprisingly, the third respondent issued an order of compulsory retirement on August 5, 2015, without waiting for his reply. After losing most of the documents related to the inquiry, the applicant used the RTI Act to obtain copies from the authorities, which he then used to submit an appeal, dated June 22, 2017, to the first respondent. However, this appeal was returned by the third respondent, advising him to submit it to the second respondent. Following this advice, the applicant resubmitted his appeal on July 18, 2017, to the second respondent, who then rejected it as "time- barred" on October 27, 2017. This rejection led to the applicant filing the present Original Application.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the Postmaster at 4 OA No,310/00145/2018 Palacode SO had pre-determined to dismiss the applicant from service, which is evident from the unjust suspension order issued on July 11, 2014, without valid grounds. The learned counsel also pointed out that the Medical Officer's report confirmed that the applicant was not under the influence of liquor, a crucial point overlooked by Respondents 2 and 3. This omission renders the 3 Respondent's order disproportionate to the charges.
4. The learned counsel further highlighted that the applicant was coerced into admitting the charges, leading to the disproportionate punishment of compulsory retirement based on the Inquiry Officer's report, He argued that when the applicant raised concerns about this coercion, it was the 2" Respondent's duty to remit the matter for a fresh inquiry, providing a fair opportunity.
5. The learned counsel also criticized the Appellate Authority's decision to reject the applicant's appeal as time-barred, deeming it unjustifiable. Hence, he prayed for the relief sought in the Original Application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment, dated a ee ee a eo) Cer) PH ey CY Mop MCAS aed, Soke Pingel oy, taABOE aE! CaS EE eg ily ey a va Ae mds eae OT aR cea aire IE et, AONE cise Ts PA ae ea Ege hE Babb h dea ee eae eT Sve 5 OA No.310/00145/2018 13.02.2017, of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP. No.14320 of 2014, in the case of S. Jacintha Vs. Union of India and Others.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that all three charges against the applicant were serious and could tarnish the department's image. He contended that the applicant's reasoning, that his father's illness and subsequent death, along with his mother's illness and death, led to his actions was not at all acceptable. The respondents' counsel asserted that personal grievances cannot justify official misconduct, especially when prompt delivery and payment are the primary duties of the delivery staff.
8. The respondents' counsel emphasized that the applicant had unconditionally admitted to all the three charges before the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, they deemed the applicant's contentions unacceptable.
The learned counsel further argued that the applicant had ample opportunity to present facts of coercion during the disciplinary proceedings but had failed to do so. Additionally, the counsel pointed out that the applicant could have raised these issues when given a chance to represent against the inquiry officer's report, but again, no such submissions were made.
6 OA No.310/00145/20189, Regarding the specific charges, the counsel highlighted that the applicant had falsely marked articles as delivered by forging signatures of non-existent recipients and that the actual addressees confirmed non- receipt of the articles. Such actions, according to the counsel, constitute a serious offence against conduct rules. He also stressed that consuming liquor while on duty is a violation. For these reasons, the learned counsel argued that the punishment of compulsory retirement was appropriate considering the gravity of the charges and pleaded for dismissal of the OA.
10. In the rejoinder filed by the applicant, he has stated that he is fit for duty in terms of the Certificate given by the Medical Officer to the effect that though 'the applicant consumed liquor, he was not under its influence', Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to the judgment, dated 05.05.2010, of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Selvi and others Vs. State of Karnataka (2010(7) SCC 263), in support of his contentions.
12. Heard Mr. R. Malaichamy, the learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. 8. Nagarajan, the learned counsel for the respondents, at length, and perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record. We have also Ay ETUS betta RATES.
PEN Se asym eae:
Pt arn ie wt KAR Rb ee ~ +h A thee Ce TA, carefully counsels.
13. Jt is seen that the following Articles of charge were framed against 7 OA No.310/00145/2018 gone through the judgments relied upon by the respective the applicant:
"ARTICLE I Shri R. Madhan, while working as Postman, Palacode So 6368068 on 25.06.2014 had shown the speed post article No.ET041582541N dated 23.06.2014 from Mumbai addressed to one Smt. K. Karpagam, 158/76A, Muthur Gounder Street, Palacode received on 25.06.2014 was shown as delivered on 25.06.2014 itself in the delivery slip and signature obtained as Sampath son. But it is alleged that she has not signed and there is no son in the name of Sampath and she has not received the article on 25.06.2014.
ARTICLE Ii Shri R. Madhan, while working as Postman, Palacode SO 636808 on 07.02.2015, had shown the speed post article No.EA931732699IN dated 03.02.2015 of SPCC, Pune addressed to one Sri S. Jeelan, 10/275 Pudhupattaniyar St. Palaode, received on 07.02.2015 was shown as delivered on 07.02.2015 itself in the delivery slip and signature obtained as Jeelan. But it is alleged by the addressee that he has not received the article on 07.02.2015 and Shri Jeelan disowned his signature found in the corresponding delivery slip.
ARTICLE I Shri R. Madhan, while working as Postman, Palacode SO 636808 on 11.07.2014 was in the state of intoxication for which Sri Madhan was directed to appear before Medical Officer, GH, Palacode. The Medical Officer, GH, Palacode in his Certificate of Drunkenness dated 11.07.2014 opined that Shri Madhan consumed liquor. The official in the state of intoxication has failed to perform assigned duties to him affecting public services."8 OA No.310/00145/2018
The aforesaid failure of the applicant in attending to the duties assigned to him violates Rule 48 of PO Guide Part I and Rule 12(1) of Volume VI Part IU and also Rule 22 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules. Thereby, he failed to maintain devotion to duty, contravening the provisions of Rule 3 (1)(@) and
(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
14. The applicant denied the charges, and, hence, an inquiry, under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, was ordered. During the inquiry, the applicant admitted all the charges framed against him. Hence, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report, dated 27.06.2015, holding that all the three charges levelled against the applicant were proved beyond doubt by his own admission. Though the Inquiry Officer's report was sent to him to file his objection, he had chosen not to make any representation. Accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, vide his order, dated 05.08.2014, imposed on him the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect. While imposing the said punishment, the Disciplinary Authority observed that "in the state of intoxication ( the applicant) had failed to perform assigned duties affecting public service. This could not be tolerated and the Charged Government Servant deserves severe punishment. Considering his age and service, I am inclined to take a lenient view."
eee ae "aagtyt LARS Ure ROU nee da ete Es at Ra MRL i, ay he ages pnw gs, repent i BURA, Mar 9 OA No.310/00145/2018
15. Itis also seen ,that aggrieved by the above said order, the applicant preferred an appeal, dated 10.07.2017, before the Appellate Authority, the Director of Postal Services, Western Region (TN), Coimbatore, the 2™ respondent herein. The Appellate Authority vide his order, dated 27.10.2017, rejected the appeal as "time barred one".
16. From the reply of the respondents, it could be seen that the applicant, while working as Postman at Palacode SO, from 18.02.2013 to 05.04.2015, remained absent from duty for the following durations:
13.10.2013 to 22.10.2013 01.07.2014 to 10.07.2014 11.10.2014 to 31.10.2014, 01.12.2024 08.12.2014 to 09.12.2014 The unauthorised absence of the applicant was treated as "Dies-non", after issuing show cause notice. The work and conduct of the applicant was not satisfactory and frequent unauthorised absence is clear evidence.
While his father expired on 02.07.2014, he did not submit any leave application and did not even intimate the fact of leave orally. Hence, absence without prior permission was treated as "Dies-non" At the time of joining duty on 11.07.2014, after his father's death, the applicant was ina state of intoxication. Hence, he was directed to appear before the Medical Officer who confirmed that the applicant had consumed liquor but was not under its influence. The applicant's state of intoxication during working 10 OA No.310/00145/2018 hours on 11.07.2014 affected the normal delivery function.
17. It is also to be noted that, in view of the unconditional acceptance of all the three articles of charge by the applicant, the Inquiry Officer held the charges as.proved beyond doubt. Besides, he has also stated that no assistance was required to defend his case. We also see that sufficient opportunities were given to the applicant by the Inquiry Officer to disprove the charges levelled against him. The applicant has not made any representation against the Inquiry Officer's report which was delivered to him on 15.07.2015, through the Inspector of Posts, Dharmapuri East Sub Division. Hence, the contention of the applicant that he was coerced to admit the charges by the Inquiry Officer is an afterthought and without any evidence. As the applicant in the instant case had been given reasonable opportunity during inquiry, the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, relied upon by the applicant, will not be of help to the applicant.
18. Ona careful reading of the order of the Disciplinary Authority, we note that the applicant in a state of intoxication has failed to perform assigned duties affecting public service. Though he deserves severe punishment, the said Authority, taking a lenient view, imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement, on 05.08.2015. The said order was served on a OA No.310/00145/2018 the applicant on 07.08.2015. However, the applicant preferred the appeal only on 18.07.2017, i.e., after a lapse of more than 23 months. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal not only on the ground of limitation but also not being convinced with the reasons given by the applicant in the appeal.
19. In view of our findings, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. The applicant has not made out a case for the relief sought by him. The OA miserably fails and it is dismissed, accordingly.
ca