Jharkhand High Court
All India Postal Employees Union Group ... vs Union Of India on 16 December, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 7135 of 2023
All India Postal Employees Union Group 'C', (A Recognised Service
Association), having its circle office at Meghdoot Bhawan, Doranda P.O.
Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, PIN 834001, (Jharkhand) through
its Circle Secretary Jharkhand, namely, Puranjay Kumar, aged about 50
years, son of Late Raghu Nandan Prasad Singh, resident of Flat No. 402,
Subala Garden, KG Ashram, Nichitpur, Town Dhanbad, P.O. Katras
Bazar, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, PIN 828114, (Jharkhand).
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts,
having its office at Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, P.O. & P.S. Sansad
Marg New Delhi - 110001
2. Department of Posts, Government of India, through its Secretary,
having its office at Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, P.O. & P.S. Sansad
Marg New Delhi - 110001
3. Director (SR & Legal), Department of Posts, Government of India,
having its office at Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, P.O. & P.S. Sansad
Marg New Delhi - 110001
4. Assistant Director General (SR & Legal), Department of Posts,
Government of India, having its office at Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
P.O. & P.S. Sansad Marg New Delhi - 110001
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI
Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate
Ms. Chandana, AC to ASGI
---
th
13/16 December 2024
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -
"(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, for quashing setting aside order dated 26.04.2023 being no. SR-
10/7/2022-SR-DOP (Annexure - 13) passed by Respondent - Department of Posts, by virtue of which the recognition 1 granted to the petitioner association under the Central civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993 has been withdrawn in a wholly illegal and arbitrary manner, against the mandate of the Central civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993.
(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Declaration, declaring that the action of Respondent Department of Posts in withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner under the Central civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993 is wholly illegal and arbitrary as the petitioner has conducted its activities as per the mandate of the Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993.
(iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent Department of Posts to immediately and forthwith grant due recognition to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules laid down in Central civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993.
(iv) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
Arguments of the petitioner
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that repeated notices were issued to the petitioner in connection with the disputed transactions and ultimately it culminated in a show cause notice dated 16.03.2023 issued to the petitioner- All India Postal Employees Union Group 'C' as well as to the National Federation of Postal Employees. He submits that as per the show cause primarily three transactions are in dispute. One is relating to utilization of Rs. 4,395/- which was alleged to have been given to provide help to the farmers' movements by buying books; an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was alleged to have been paid to CITU and the allegation was in connection with Rs. 30,000/- [though the amount has not specifically been mentioned in the show cause notice] which was the contributions for farmers' movements. He submits that this would be clear from the earlier show cause notices issued to the petitioner.
24. The learned counsel has submitted that in response to the show cause notice, a common reply was furnished by both the noticee as the same person was the Secretary General of both the authorities i.e. All India Postal Employees Union Group 'C' and National Federation of Postal Employees. In the said reply, adequate explanation was given in connection with contribution for farmers' movements in paragraph 3 and with respect to remittance of Rs. 50,000/-, the allegation was clearly denied. He has further submitted that with respect to sum of Rs. 4,395/- being donated to CPI (M), the transactions was explained by stating that it was not donation, but some online payment was made on 05.01.2021 with respect to purchase of some books and appropriate action was taken against the concerned person who had remitted the amount and it has also been recovered from his salary. The learned counsel has also referred to the receipt of the books which has been annexed along with the writ petition which is dated 20.10.2022 and he submits that the said receipt has been issued with respect to dues of 05.01.2021. The learned counsel submits that by the impugned order the recognition of both the noticee has been withdrawn with immediate effect with a further rider , 'till further orders'.
5. The learned counsel has submitted that so far as the National Federation of Postal Employees is concerned, they have filed a separate writ petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court which is pending and they have challenged the same order dated 26.04.2023 which is impugned in the present case, but the impugned order in the present case is under challenge, so far as the petitioner is concerned.
6. The learned counsel submits that in the impugned order also there is no specific details with respect to bank transaction of Rs. 50,000/- from the account of the association to the account of CITU. The specific detail was neither mentioned in any of the earlier notices nor it has been mentioned in the impugned order although the petitioner has specifically denied the said transaction.
37. The learned counsel has submitted that so far as the amount of Rs. 4,395/- is concerned, that was a very small amount and the transaction in connection with such amount could not have called for such a harsh action.
8. With respect to the spending of Rs. 30,000/-, the learned counsel has relied upon the Constitution of the petitioner and has referred to clause 2(a) to submit that one of the aims of the association is to render efficient service to the nation and the people and with regard to application of fund, he has referred to clause 10(g) to submit that payment is permissible in furtherance of any of the aims and objects of the Union on which the general funds may be spent. He has submitted that utilization of money for the farmers' movements was covered within aims and objects as enumerated in clause 2(a) and therefore there was no illegality in furnishing such an amount. This is over and above the argument that the amount of Rs. 30,000/- was initially paid against quota and when the petitioner was informed that it was utilized for the purposes of farmers' movement, the same was placed in the meeting and such utilization was duly approved. He submits that such approval of the utilization was in consonance with the aims and objects as enumerated in the Constitution of All India Postal Employees Union Group 'C'. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order is an example of high handedness by the respondents.
9. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1967 SC 1269 (State of Orissa vs. DR. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Others) paragraph 12 to submit that the impugned order in connection with Rs. 50,000/- has been passed without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. For the same purpose, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment reported in (1990) 2 SCC 746 (Neelima Misra vs. Harinder Kaur Paintal & Others) paragraph 22 to submit that an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules expressed in the Latin maxim audi alteram partem. He submits that the finding in connection 4 with remittance of Rs. 50,000/- is ex-facie vague and not supported by any evidence at any stage and therefore the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2024) 14 SCC 731 paragraph 12 and 25 and has submitted that the interest of large number of employees of the postal department are involved in the present case and there cannot be any blanket discontinuation of recognition of the petitioner and it should certainly be open to the petitioner to apply for fresh recognition.
11. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel has submitted that the recognition was initially granted for a period of five years and it was extended from time to time and the de- recognition order which is under challenge in the present proceeding has completed the period for which the recognition was granted. The petitioner has already suffered the de-recognition for the remaining period of recognition.
12. The concern of the petitioner is that fresh application should be considered because there is no bar under the Act and the Rules that the association cannot apply for fresh recognition and under such circumstances, this observation would suffice to meet the justice to the petitioner.
Arguments of the respondents
13. Learned ASGI appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the show cause notice was issued specifically by referring to the provisions of Rule 5(b) rule 5(h) and rule 6(c) of Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Associations Rules, 1993 (in short 'CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993') which has been annexed along with the writ petition as contained in Annexure-1. He submits that as per rule 5(b), the Service Association has been formed primarily with the object of promoting the common service interest of its members; as per rule 5(h), the funds of the Service Association consist exclusively of subscriptions from members 5 and grants, if any, made by the Government, and are to be applied only for the furtherance of the objects of the Service Association.
14. The learned ASGI submits that the utilization of the fund for farmer's movement can by no stretch of imagination be related to rule 5(b) and 5(h) of the aforesaid Rule, 1993. He submits that there was no response with respect to the rules which were specifically mentioned in the show cause notice. He has further referred to rule 6(c) to submit that the service association is not supposed to maintain any political fund or lend itself to the propagation of the view of any political party or a member of such party.
15. The spending of the amount involved in the present case clearly indicated that the fund was utilized against the rules governing the association.
16. He has referred to Rule 8 and has submitted that there is a specific provision for withdrawal of recognition when the association acts in violation of rules 5, 6 or 7 and the respondents have acted in accordance with law. The learned counsel has also submitted that though no specific date of entry with respect to utilization of Rs. 50,000/- has been mentioned, but the reply of the petitioner when read as a whole will indicate that the transactions stood admitted.
17. The learned ASGI has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7138 of 2010 (Government of India & Others vs. ISRO Drivers Association) paragraph 32 to submit that the scheme and the rules have been duly explained therein. He has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 4 SCC 500 (Sarvepalli Ramaiah (dead) as per legal representatives & Others vs. District Collector, Chittoor District & Others) paragraph 42 and 43 to submit that the scope of interference in the impugned administrative decision is limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Mad. 11603 (All India Postal Employees Progressive Union vs. Union of India & 6 Others) to submit that in the said case, the safeguards given to the postal employees have been enumerated.
18. During the course of argument, the learned ASGI has also referred to office memorandum dated 28.01.2022 whereby the validity of the recognition of the service association was made to be effective for 5 years from 19.07.2019. He has submitted that upon expiry of 5 years another office memorandum dated 30.07.2024 was issued whereby the recognition was extended for a period of 1 year with effect from 19.07.2024 or till completion of verification process whichever is earlier.
19. It is also relevant to note here that an interim order was passed by this Court on 12.04.2024 staying the operation of the impugned order dated 26.04.2023 and by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interim order has been continued.
20. Arguments concluded.
21. Judgment is reserved.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul 7