Madras High Court
The Superintendent Of Post Offices, ... vs P. Panneerselvam And The Registrar, ... on 5 January, 2008
Equivalent citations: (2008)4MLJ444
Author: K. Chandru
Bench: P.K. Misra, K. Chandru
ORDER K. Chandru, J.
1. Heard the arguments of Mr. S.M. Deenadayalan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. T. Madasamy, learned Counsel for the first respondent and have perused the records.
2. The petitioner is the Union of India represented by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Karur Division. The first respondent in the writ petition filed O.A. No. 975 of 2001 seeking to set aside the order of the first petitioner dated 30.11.1999 in removing him from service, which was confirmed by the fourth petitioner vide order dated 26.12.2000.
3. The first respondent was employed as a substitute for the permanent Postmaster, by name, Mr. P. Shankar, from 18.12.1995 to 29.8.1996 in the Anampatti Branch Post Office, Thiagesar Alai Sub-Post Office, Manaparai Taluk. He became a permanent Postmaster of the said branch on 30.8.1996. One A. Mani, had five Recurring Deposit Accounts in the said Post Office and when he wanted to close his RD Accounts permanently, he applied for closure of the accounts and he requested the first respondent to close his account and nominated him as his messenger to receive the amount. The first respondent withdrew the amount on 20.02.1996 and claimed to have handed over the said amount to one S. Chelladurai, brother-in-law of the said Mani. However, the said Mani made a complaint to the petitioner on 12.9.1996. On the basis of the said complaint, an enquiry was ordered under the Post and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 [for short, 'EDA Rules'] and after the enquiry, the charges against the first respondent were established and he was removed from service. The appeal against the said order was also rejected. Even though it was contended that the first respondent had committed the said offence only when he was a substitute and, therefore, the relevant Rules will not apply and there was no material to find him guilty because the original complainant had withdrawn the complaint, the Tribunal found that the first respondent had earlier filed application in O.A. No. 154 of 1997, which was disposed on 03.11.1997, holding that the termination of the petitioner was not valid. But, however, liberty was given to the petitioner to take further action as per law. The Tribunal largely went by the fact that there was no evidence against the petitioner on the basis of the evidence rendered by the brother-in-law of the original complainant and held that it was a case of no evidence and accordingly, once again, set aside the order of termination and directed his reinstatement.
4. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted interim stay on 08.4.2003 which, even today, is subsisting. The approach of the Tribunal that the statement of Chelladurai, brother-in-law of the complainant is acceptable, is erroneous. In fact, it is also found that the complainant Mani had stated that he did not receive the amount from his brother-in-law and, therefore, made a complaint, will clearly show that the complainant and his brother-in-law were secured by the first respondent. There is no reason as to why the complainant should first make a complaint about his non-receipt and, thereafter, set up defence by bringing his brother-in-law to claim that the amounts have been paid to him. When there is a written complaint against the petitioner that he had misappropriated the RD Accounts maintained by the complainant, subsequent to the oral statement before the enquiry, totally going against the original complaint, cannot be accepted unless there are any special circumstances. If the petitioner is capable of committing certain irregularities even working as a substitute, then he does not deserve to be employed in the services of the petitioner. In fact, it was the first respondent who was authorised as a messenger and not his brother-in-law Chelladurai. This itself will show that there is certain doubt in the defence taken by the first respondent. The Investigating Officer vouchsafed the complaint sent by Mani and, therefore, that itself can be taken as an evidence against the petitioner.
5. In fact, in the present case, the letter authorising the first respondent was not written by Mani but that was found in the handwriting of the first respondent himself. Therefore, he had set up a story of the money being handed over to one Chelladurai, brother-in-law of the complainant. In fact, under the Rules, the employees are not entitled to act as a messenger or recipient of the money and even on that score, the conduct of the first respondent was improper. When deposits were made by unlettered clients and the monies are kept in trust by the postal bank, it is not open to persons like the first respondent to win the confidence of the depositors and misappropriate the amount without their knowledge. Such conduct on the part of the first respondent will bring disrepute to the Post Office Bank in the minds of the depositors.
6. His other contention that the Rules will not apply, is only stated to be rejected. Even in the absence of any Rule, when a misconduct is committed, the same can be punished by the employer by following minimum principles of natural justice.
7. Under the above circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is clearly erroneous and accordingly, the writ petition will stand allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 03.5.2002 passed in O.A. No. 975 of 2001 is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.