Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Smt Manisha Purania vs D/O Postal on 17 April, 2025
Reserved
(On 11.02.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Dated : This the _17th day of _April_ 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Member (J)
Hon'ble Ms Mallika Arya, Member (A)
Original Application No. 285 of 2020
Smt. Manisha W/o Late Shri Moolchand Purania Aged-47 yrs,
Occupation domestic work R/o-28/DB/S-4, Scheme No. 78, Vijay
Nagar, Indore. M.P. 452010.
.......Applicant
By Adv: Ms. Kausiki Sharma
VERSUS
1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of
Communication, Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, New
Delhi- PIN: 110001
2. Chief Postmaster General, M.P. Circle, Hoshangabad
Road, Bhopal, District-Bhopal, PIN: 462012 (Μ.Ρ.)
3. Post Master General, Indore Region, Indore, District-
Indore.452001 (M.P.)
4. Director, Postal Services, Indore Region, Indore452001
5. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Indore City division,
Indore 452007 (M.P.).
........Respondents
PIYUSH
CHANDRA
PIYUSH
By Adv: Shri S.P. Singh
CHANDRA
2025.04.17
15:42:40+05'30'
1
ORDER
By Ms. Mallika Arya, AM The applicant through the present OA has prayed to issue appropriate direction to the respondents to quash the Charge sheet dated 30.09.2009 (Annx/A/5), impugned orders dated 13.06.2014 and 06.05.2015 (Ann-A/11 & A/13) and to treat the applicant' husband on duty i.e. from date of suspension till his death with all consequential benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the husband of the applicant, Late Shri Moolchand Purania was enrolled with the Employment Exchange with the registration No. 3346/93 which was renewed with effect from 15.05.1996 having validity till April, 1999 in the Scheduled Caste category. Superintendent of Post Office, Indore Muffasil Division vide letter No. 23-26/97 had called for a list of candidates for interview to the post of Postal Assistants. In reply to the aforesaid letter, the Employment Exchange provided the list of candidates under the general, SC, ST, OBC categories to the Superintendent of Post Offices vide PIYUSH letter dated 09.06.1987. The name of the applicant's husband CHANDRA PIYUSH CHANDRA also figured in the list as SC category. 2025.04.17 15:42:40+05'30' 2
3. In pursuance to the aforesaid letter, the husband of the applicant filled up the application form on 04.07.1997 for appointment to the said post. The Superintendent of Post Offices, vide its order dated 30.12.1997, made an offer for appointment to the deceased to the post of Time Scale Clerk Postal Assistant in the Indore Muffasil Division. This order contains a categorical admission of the Superintendent of Post Offices to the effect that the name of the applicant's husband has been brought on the list of approved candidates for temporary appointment to the said post. Thereafter after training and completion of all other formalities, the applicant's husband was appointed to the post of Postal Assistant and was posted at Dewas HO with effect from 29.09.1998. He joined service from 06.10.1998.
4. The applicant's husband was regularized on the said post and he worked with an unblemished career record. To his utter shock and surprise he received an order dated 16.03.2009 stating that his services have been suspended in the wake of proposed departmental enquiry and a charge-sheet dated 30.09.2009 was PIYUSH CHANDRA issued (common charge sheet was issued to Vishvas PIYUSH CHANDRA 2025.04.17 Nimgaonkar, Narayan Chauhan and Moolchand Purnia, Husband 15:42:40+05'30' 3 of Applicant) under rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules instead of Rule 18 of CCS (CCA) Rules) where it was alleged that the names of the applicant's husband along two other Postal Assistant were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The then Superintendent of Post Offices in order to the extend unlawful benefit to them appointed them to the post of Postal Assistant without following the due procedure prescribed as per rules. The departmental enquiry commenced and an Inquiry Officer was appointed on 15.04.2010. The Inquiry Officer, after a detailed enquiry and appreciating the evidence and material on record, held that the charges leveled against the applicant's husband and others did not get proved as the onus to produce the list from Employment Exchange relating to the name of the applicant's husband and other candidates lay on the respondent authorities and they failed to discharge it.
5. After submission of the aforesaid report, the Disciplinary Authority submitted a disagreement note (Annexure-A/8) against the inquiry report stating that there is sufficient material to proceed against the applicant's husband. The applicant's PIYUSH CHANDRA husband filed a reply to disagreement note (Annexure-A/9). The PIYUSH CHANDRA 2025.04.17 applicant's husband and others challenged the aforesaid 15:42:40+05'30' 4 disagreement note before CAT, Jabalpur and ultimately a WP No. 13798/2013 was also filed before the Hon'ble High Court of M.P., (Indore Bench) which was disposed with the direction to raise the objections to the disagreement note at the time of final decision before the Disciplinary Authority. (Annexure - A/10). The statements of the various witnesses were recorded. The Disciplinary Authority summoned the record from the Employment Exchange to ascertain the list of the candidates sent at the relevant point of time. However, in the testimony of the witnesses during the course of departmental proceedings it was revealed that there was a practice of destroying the record by the Employment Exchange within one year in respect of the general category candidates and 5 years in respect of the candidates from reserved category. The departmental proceedings got concluded and the Respondent No. 5 came to the conclusion that since there is no material record to ascertain that the names of the applicant's husband and two others were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Hence, the Applicant's husband was held guilty and the Respondent No. 5 vide order dated 13.06.2014 terminated the applicant's husband from service (Annexure A/11). PIYUSH CHANDRA The applicant's husband challenged the findings of the PIYUSH CHANDRA 2025.04.17 departmental proceedings by filling an appeal before Director, 15:42:40+05'30' 5 Postal Services (Annexure A/12) being the Appellate Authority. Without seeing the material on record, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicant's husband and affirmed the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, vide his order dated 06.05.2015 (Annexure A/13).
6. The same punishment was awarded to Vishwas Nimgonekar and Narayan Chauhan. This punishment order was assailed before this Tribunal vide Original Application No. 200/00678/2015 (Narayan Chouhan vs Union of India and Others) and Original Application No.200/00427/2015 (Vishwas Nimgaonkar vs Union of India and Others) (Annexure-A/14). These OAs were allowed vide order dated 10.07.2019 by passing following orders:-
"26. In the above backdrop of the case, we quash and set aside the punishment order dated 13.06.2014 (Annexure A-2) passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order dated 23.05.2015 (Annexure A-4) of the Appellate Authority and remand the case back to the disciplinary authority for the purposes of proceeding afresh from the stage of recording a dissenting note.
7. This order was assailed by Respondents before Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of MP (at Indore). The Hon'ble MP PIYUSH High Court dismissed the Writ Petition No.20911/2019 dated CHANDRA PIYUSH 02.12.2019 (Union of India and Others vs. Narayan Chouhan) CHANDRA 2025.04.17 15:42:40+05'30' 6 and Writ Petition No. 21206/2019 dated 21/01/2020 (Union of India and Others vs Vishwas Nimgaonkar). The husband of the applicant expired on 13.04.2016. The applicant being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents has filed this OA.
8. The respondents have filed their reply in which they have submitted that the applicant's husband was given undue benefit of appointment to the post of postal assistant and the appointment was made in contravention of instructions on recruitment during 1997. As per the instructions from the Directorate General Department of Post, New Delhi No.60-36/93 SPB-1 dated 28.02.1995, received under Postmaster General, Indore Region, Indore Endorsement No. R1-14/Ruling/Il dated 10.03.1995, for selection on direct recruitment for the Post of Postal Assistant in Indore Moffussil Division, Indore for the year 1997, applications were called from the District Employment Exchange five times. The name of the applicant's husband was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange Indore. The then Superintendent of Post Offices, Indore Moffussil Division, Indore against the procedure prescribed in the statutory recruitment rules PIYUSH CHANDRA and instructions on the subject gave undue benefit by selecting PIYUSH CHANDRA 2025.04.17 15:42:40+05'30' and appointing the applicant's husband as Postal Assistant in the 7 pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 vide memo No B2-3/R/97-98 dated 29.09.1998. When the above irregularities came to the notice, of the respondents, Shri Moolchand Purania, applicant's husband was placed under suspension w.e.f. 16.03.2009 on contemplated/pending disciplinary action and a common charge sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 was issued by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Indore City Division under memo dated 30.09.2009. The applicant's husband was asked to submit his written explanation to the said Article of Charge within the stipulated period. The Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed vide SSPOS Indore City, Indore vide order dated 24.11.2009. After completion of Departmental Inquiry, a copy of inquiry report was supplied vide memo no. 82/Rectt/Indore Mof/DE/09-10 dated 30.12.2011 and thereafter a disagreement note on the inquiry report was also supplied to applicant's husband vide memo no.B2/Bharti/Indore Moffussil/DE/09-10 dated 04.04.2012 thereby giving him an opportunity to make his representation against the disagreement note within 10 days from the date of receipt of disagreement note. PIYUSH CHANDRA 9. They have further submitted that Original Application No. PIYUSH CHANDRA 2025.04.17 372/12 challenging the disagreement note dated 04.04.2012 was 15:42:40+05'30' 8 filed by Shri Moolchand Purania on the ground that Shri H.B. Sharma, who issued the disagreement note was not holding the permanent post of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices. Therefore, he was not competent to issue the disagreement note as he failed to observe the procedure under Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. 1965 and instructions issued by the DOP&T. The Tribunal dismissed the original application vide order dated 28.11.2013 (Annexure R/1). Being aggrieved with the order dated 28.11.2013 passed in OA 372/12, a WP 13843/13 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. Indore Bench (Annexure R/2) in which the Hon'ble High Court observed as follows:-.
"8. This court has carefully gone through the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the facts remain that the petitioner has submitted a representation to the disagreement riote and the disciplinary authority is yet to pass a final order in the matter. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in holding that the supply of disagreement note dated 4.4.12 does not prejudice the defence of the petitioner in any way. The petitioner does have an opportunity to file a reply to the disagreement note and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the Original Application. This Court is of the considered opinion that the disciplinary authority is certainly at a liberty keeping in view the Rules of 1965 to pass a final order in the matter in accordance with law. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at this juncture. So far, as the observations and the findings arrived at by the Central Administrative Tribunal are concerned, the same will not come in way of the petitioner while agitating the matter afresh, in case any adverse order is passed against him by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority shall also pass an PIYUSH appropriate order after taking into account the petitioner's CHANDRA representation to the disagreement note and shall not be PIYUSH influenced nor shall take into account the observations made by CHANDRA the Central Administrative Tribunal and its order dated 30.9.13. In 2025.04.17 case the petitioner still aggrieved in the matter, he shall be free to 15:42:40+05'30' 9 take appropriate action in accordance with law after a final order is passed by the disciplinary authority. The admission is declined.
9. The other connected writ petitions are also dismissed with the aforesaid observations."
10. Thereafter the disciplinary authority, after taking into consideration the representation submitted by the applicant, material available on record and nature of charges, issued the penalty of "removal from service" vide order dated 13.06.2014. Feeling aggrieved the applicant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority considered appeal and not finding any illegality in the action of disciplinary authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 06.05.2015.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases has held that an irregular appointment does not confirm any right on the appointee. Appointments made illegally and contrary to all recognized/requirements procedures are highly arbitrary and are not binding upon the Government. An appointment made in contravention of the recruitment rules will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appointment was not in line PIYUSH with the instructions issued by Director General of Posts, on the CHANDRA PIYUSH CHANDRA subject.
2025.04.17 15:42:40+05'30' 10
12. The applicant has filed rejoinder in which she has reiterated the same facts as in the OA.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully.
14. The applicant is claiming parity; vide this OA, vis-à-vis other two similarly placed employees whom she claims to have got the benefit in terms of Hon'ble High Court's (Indore) order in Writ Petition No. 20911 of 2019 dated 02.12.2019 (Union of India and others vs. Narayan Chouhan) and Writ Petition No. 21206 of 2019 dated 21.01.2020 (Union of India vs. Vishwas Nimgonkar). It is evident from the facts on record that the applicant's husband was neither an applicant in these OAs before this Bench nor was he a party in the aforesaid Writ Petitions. The facts remains that the order of termination dated 13.06.2014 (Annexure A/11) and the appellate order dated 06.05.2015 (Annexure A/13) which have been assailed by the applicant in this OA were issued during the life time of the applicant's husband. These could have been PIYUSH CHANDRA challenged by the applicant's husband during his lifetime which PIYUSH CHANDRA 2025.04.17 15:42:40+05'30' was not done. It is only after the receipt of the order of the 11 Division Bench of Hon'ble MP High Court (Indore) in Writ Petition No. 20911 of 2019 that the applicant has preferred an OA in 2020. It is evident that the applicant was watching the proceedings before this Tribunal as well as before Hon'ble MP High Court and it only after the aforesaid judgments that she approached this Tribunal requesting for similar benefits for her late husband.
15. The respondents have pleaded that the name of the applicant's husband was not referred by the Employment Exchange and therefore, his case has been rejected on merits. We also observe that this Tribunal vide order dated 10.07.2019 passed in OA No. 427 of 2015 passed the following orders:-
"26. In the above backdrop of the case, we quash and set aside the punishment order dated 13.06.2014 (Annexure A-2) passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order dated 23.05.2015 (Annexure A-4) of the Appellate Authority and remand the case back to the Disciplinary Authority for the purposes of proceeding afresh from the stage of recording a dissenting note."
16. We also observe that the Hon'ble MP High Court upheld the order of this Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the PIYUSH CHANDRA Disciplinary Authority with the following directions:-
PIYUSH CHANDRA 2025.04.17 15:42:40+05'30' 12 "in the light of the aforesaid, the admission is declined. The matter is remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority afresh from the stage of recording of dissenting note. The disciplinary authority shall conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."
17. In the additional reply the respondents have also submitted that the issue is barred by Principle of Res judicata. The DG (Vigilance) cum CBO in consultation with the CVO (Annexure A/6) had found that five candidates out of ten were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and the Superintendent of Post Offices while misusing his official position had issued the appointment letter to the applicant's husband. It is a fact on record that the applicant filed a representation dated 18.02.2020 before the respondents, wherein she requested for similar benefits for her husband as mentioned in decision passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 427/2015 and OA No. 678/2016 and further upheld by Hon'ble MP High Court. The benefit extended vide these OAs are personal to the applicants to the said OAs and Writ Petition. Further as per para 26 of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 21206/2019, the Hon'ble High Court MP (Indore) has observed as follows:-
"In the light of the aforesaid, the admission is declined. The matter is remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority for the PIYUSH purposes of proceedings afresh from the stage of recording of CHANDRA dissenting note. The disciplinary authority shall conclude the PIYUSH proceedings within a period of three months from the date of CHANDRA 2025.04.17 receipt of certified copy of this order."
15:42:40+05'30' 13
18. It is observed that the fate of these employees has also not been brought on record by the respondents.
19. Respondents have relief on the judgment in the case of State of Orissa vs. Mamta Mohanaty - (2011) 3 SCC 436 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that once an appointment is bad at its inception, it cannot be preserved or protected.
20. We also note that the representation of the applicant claiming parity in the line with the decision of this Tribunal and the Hon'ble MP High Court has been considered and replied by the respondents as stated by the respondents in their reply.
21. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of A.P. Steel Re- Rolling Mills Ltd. vs. State of Kerala and others - (2007) 2 SCC 725, in para 26, has stated as follows:-
"26. The benefit of a judgment is not extended to a case automatically. While granting relief in a writ petition, the High PIYUSH Court is entitled to consider the fact situation obtaining in each CHANDRA case including the conduct of the petitioner. In doing so, the PIYUSH Court is entitled to take into consideration the fact as to whether CHANDRA the writ petitioner had chosen to sit over the matter and then 2025.04.17 wake up after the decision of this Court. If it is found that the 15:42:40+05'30' 14 appellant approached the Court after a long delay, the same may disentitle him to obtain a discretionary relief. {See Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and Anr. v. Jaswant Singh and Anr. 2006 (12) Scale
347.}"
22. The applicant is also requesting for appointment on compassionate grounds which cannot be acceded in terms of the Rule 10 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
23. It is also pertinent to mention that the applicant had filed MA No. 323/2020 for condonation of delay of 03 years and 06 months, alongwith the OA, which has not been allowed by this Bench. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the OA is liable to be dismissed on the ground of time bar and on merits as well. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/Piyush/
PIYUSH
CHANDRA
PIYUSH
CHANDRA
2025.04.17
15:42:40+05'30'
15