Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
K Sooriya Moorthy vs D/O Post on 29 April, 2019
1 OA 597/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
O.A.No. 597/2019
Dated Monday, the 29th day of April, 2019
PRESENT
Hon'ble Mr.R.Ramanujam, Administrative Member
&
Hon'ble Mr. P. Madhavan, Judicial Member
K. Sooriyamoorthy
939, 5th Street
Vijayanagaram
Gandhi Nagar
Arupukottai, Virudhunagar - 626 101. ...Applicant
By Advocate M/s S Conscious Ilango
Vs.
1. Superintendent of Post Offices
Ramanathapuram Division
Ramanathapuram - 623 501.
2. Assistant Superintend of Post Offices
Ramanathapuram Division
Ramanathapuram - 623 501.
3. The Postmaster Gr. III
Paramakudi Head Post Office
Paramakudi HO 623 707. ...Respondents
By Advocate Mr. Su Srinivasan
2 OA 597/2019
ORAL ORDER
(Order: Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. R. Ramanujam, Member(A)) Heard. The applicant has filed this OA seeking the following relief:
"To call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 29.01.2019 and quash the same and pass such further of other orders"
2. It is submitted that the applicant made a complaint against the 3 rd respondent in relation to a money matter on account of which he was allegedly slapped by the latter. He also alleged that the incident had been recorded in the office camera. He sought action against the 3 rd respondent. However instead of taking action against the 3 rd respondent the applicant was issued with Annexure A4 impugned order dated 29.01.2019 wherein it is stated that the applicant had been on unauthorised absence from duty from 16.08.2018 without prior permission to leave the Head Quarters. It was also ascertained that he was a habitual unauthorised absentee due to his posting at a distant place from his home town. He was accordingly issued a severe warning that he should not come up for such adverse notice in future.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that since a specific complaint was made by him, an enquiry was called for. In any case it was incorrect on the part of the first respondent to state in the impugned order that the applicant's explanation was not convincing as no explanation was sought in the first place.
3 OA 597/2019
4. Mr. Su. Srinivasan takes notice for the respondents and submits that the applicant could be permitted to make a representation against Annexure A4 communication, if he had indeed not been heard or the matter had not received the attention of the competent authority.
5. Keeping in view of the above and without going into the substantive merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this OA with liberty to the applicant to make a representation to the competent authority against Annexure A4 "Severe Warning" within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the competent authority shall duly enquire into the matter and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months thereafter.
6. OA is disposed of.
(P. MADHAVAN) (R.RAMANUJAM) Member (J) 29.04.2019 Member (A) AS