Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Amajeppa vs Department Of Posts on 13 August, 2024
1 OA 579/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00579/2023
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE DR.SANJIV KUMAR ...MEMBER(A)
Shri Amajeppa,
S/o Shri Mariappa,
Aged 55 years, Ex-GDS BPM,
Kallilingasugur BPO,
a/w Lingasugur MDG-584122,
Raichur Division,
Raichur-584102, residing at
Kallilingasugur Village,
Lingasugur Taluk,
Raichur -584122. ...Applicant
(By Advocate, Shri A.R.Holla)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
By Secretary,
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi-110001.
2 OA 579/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
2. The Postmaster General,
North Karnataka Region,
Dharwad-580001.
3. The Director of Postal Services (HQ),
O/o Chief Postmaster General,
Karnataka Circle,
Bengaluru-560001.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Raichur Division,
Raichur -584102. ...Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri S.Prakash Shetty for Respondents No.1to4)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
The applicant has filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) To quash the (i) Memo No.RCR/F6-3/2/2016-2017 dated at Raichur, the 18.12.2020, issued by the Respondent No.4, Annexure A4, (ii) Memo No.NKR/VIG/APPEAL/047/2021 dated at Dharwad, the 11.01.2022, issued by the respondent No.2, AnnexueA6 and
(iii) Memo No.NKR/VIG/PET/809/2022 dated at Dharwad, 3 OA 579/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH the 04.07.2022, issued by the respondent No.2, Annexure -
A8.
(ii) Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits with full pay and allowances and continuity of service from the date of his dismissal till the date of his reinstatement and treating the 'put off duty' period as on duty and
(iii) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case"
2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant was appointed as GDS BPM, Kallilingasugur Branch Post Office a/w Lingasugur Mukhya Dak Garh in Raichur Division, Raichur on 14.04.1989. He was placed on put off duty on 31.01.2017 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on 17.04.2018 under Rule 10 of the GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011, framing four Articles of charge. In the inquiry held in these charges, it was held that Article No.2 has not been proved and other articles of charge were proved against the applicant. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from engagement.
4 OA 579/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred appeal before the Respondent No.3, which came to be dismissed on the ground of delay without considering the matter on merits. On the revision petition filed by the applicant before the Respondent No.2, the revision petition was dismissed upholding the order of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. Learned Counsel Shri A.R.Holla appearing for the applicant submitted that though the inquiry officer has given a finding that the charge relating to Article No.2 has not been proved against the applicant, Respondent No.4/Disciplinary Authority has not issued any disagreement note on the same. But proceeded on the basis that all the Articles of charge were proved against the applicant. Hence the penalty order is vitiated. The Appellate Authority without considering the matter on merits dismissed the appeal sans condoning the delay of three months in filing the appeal. Revisional Authority in a mechanical manner confirmed the order of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority without 5 OA 579/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH adjudicating upon the order of Appellate Authority. Hence seeks for interference of this Tribunal.
4. Learned Counsel Shri S.Prakash Shetty representing the respondents submitted that on 31.01.2017 during verification of Branch Office accounts by the Inspector Posts, Lingasugur Sub- Division, it was noticed that the closing balance of Branch Office at the end of 31.01.2017 was Rs.15304/- (Cash- Rs.14892/- and Postage Stamps and Stationery - Rs.412) in the Branch Post Office account book. On the physical verification of the cash with the applicant it was found Rs.235/- only against the cash balance of Rs.14,892/-. Thus a shortage of office cash of Rs.14,657/- was found. Further it was noticed that the applicant had kept many ordinary and accountable articles at the Branch Office without making delivery to the concerned addressee/addresses. The concerned addressee were inquired and they stated that they were very much available in the village and their article was not delivered by the applicant. However, the said articles were delivered to the concerned addressees through special arrangement.
6 OA 579/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Since the applicant was adversely noticed for shortage of office cash and non-delivery of articles, he was placed under put-off duty on 31.01.2017 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings after issuing the memo of charges. No representation/explanation was submitted by the applicant, as such the Disciplinary Authority took steps to proceed further by appointing the inquiry officer and the presenting officer. Inquiry was conducted and report was submitted after providing reasonable opportunities to the applicant. The copy of the inquiry officer's report was sent to the applicant by the Disciplinary Authority to which the applicant submitted his representation. After analysing the records of the case, Disciplinary Authority has imposed the penalty of removal from engagement. Since the applicant has preferred the appeal with a delay of three months i.e., after a period of six months from the delivery of punishment order without assigning sufficient cause, the appeal came to be rejected without considering the matter on merits. However, the Revisional Authority has considered the matter extensively on merits and confirmed the order passed by the 7 OA 579/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Disciplinary Authority, the same being in accordance with law, deserves to be confirmed rejecting the OA.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. Articles of charge framed against the applicant vide charge memorandum dated 17.04.2018 (Annexure A1) reads thus:
"Article-I That Shri Amajeppa while working as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster, Kallilingasugur Branch Post Office a/w Lingasugur Mukhya Dak Garh from 14.04.1989 kept office cash short by Rs.14,657/- (Rs.Fourteen thousand six hundred and fity seven only) on 31.01.2017. Shri Amajeppa thus failing to keep custody of office cash, violated the provisions of Rule-11 of Book of Rules for Branch Post Offices (Sixth Edition (2nd Reprint)), thereby exhibiting lack of integrity and devotion to duty contravened the provisions of Rule-21 of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.
Article-II That the said Shri Amajeppa while working as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster, Kallilingasugur 8 OA 579/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Branch Post Office a/w Lingasugur MDG during the period from 14.04.1989 to 31.01.2017 did not return following e Money Orders as unclaimed received in the name of deceased payees shown against each e Money Order to account office.
Sl eMO Value Name and Date of Date of
No Number /Amo address of paymen death
and date unt of the t shown of the
of issue eMO deceased in the payee
payee post
office
records
01 Lingasu Rs. Dyavamm 02/06/ 16.04.
gur 500- a (Alias 2014 2014
eMO Dyamam (SO
No.0551 ma Ob-
0814052 Ginddiyar long
1722562 ) W/o Shri Stamp-
dtd Hanamap 02/06/
21/05/ pa, R/o 2014
2014 Hunakunt
i Post:
Kallilinga
sugur-
584122.
Shri Amajeppa instead of returning the above eMO as unclaimed has shown in the post office records of Kallilingasugur Branch Post Offices as paid and charged the payment in the accounts. Shri Amajeppa thus has failing to return the said eMO as unclaimed did not follow the provisions of Rule-115 of Book of Rules for Branch Post Offices read with Rule 76(4) of ibid, thereby exhibiting lack of integrity and devotion to duty contravened the provisions 9 OA 579/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH of Rule 21 of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.
Article-III That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri Amajeppa has failed to pay athe following e Money Orders to their respective payees but shown them as paid in the office records on the dates mentioned against each as shown below and misappropriated the amount of eMOs for his personal needs.
Sl eMO No. & Date of Name & Address Amo- Date
N issue & Office of issue of the payee unt of on
o Mo- which
ney shown
order as
in Rs. paid in
the
Office
record
s
1 Lingasugur eMO No. Smt.Dyamamma 500 17/04/
055108141217907662 W/o Shri 2015
dated17/12/2014 Hanmappa,
Post/RO-
Rampur-
Lingasugur
584122
2 Lingasugur eMO No. Smt.Dyamamma 500 17/04/
055108150107919154 W/o Shri 2015
dated 07/01/2015 Hanmappa,
Post/RO-
Rampur-
Lingasugur
584122
3 Lingasugur eMO No. Smt.Hanumawa 500 16/08/
055108140806792349 W/o Shri 2014
dated 06/08/2014 Sharanappa
Bhopur, R/o
Bhopur Tq
Lingasugur
584122
10 OA 579/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
4 Lingasugur eMO No. Smt.Hanumawa 500 23/09/
055108140909832361 W/o Shri 2014
dated 09/09/2014 Sharanappa
Bhopur, R/o
Bhopur Tq
Lingasugur
584122
It is therefore alleged that Shri Amajeppa (Under POD) while working as GDS BPM Kallilingasugur BO a/w Lingasugur MDG has failed to pay the value of above eMOs to the respective payees and has violated the provisions of Rule 10 of Book of Rules for Branch Post Offices (Sixth Edition (2nd Reprint)), thereby exhibiting lack of integrity and devotion to duty contravened the provisions of Rule-21 of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules-2011.
Article-IV That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri Amajeppa has filed to make delivery of following articles to their respective addressees/addresses.
Sl Article No. Name & Date of Date of
N Address of the receipt of actual
o article article at delivery
addressee Kalliling on which
asugur delivery
BO of the
article
was
made
later by
the
11 OA 579/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Departm
ent
through
special
arrange
ment.
1 RM811329854IN Shri Kallappa 28-11- 31-01-
S/o Shri 2016 2017
Gowdappa,
Near
Basaveshwar
Temple,
Hunakunti, PO:
Kallilingasugur,
Linagasugur
584122
2 EX335935293IN Shri Kallappa 19-01- 31-01-
S/o Shri 2017 2017
Gowdappa,
Hunakunti, PO:
Kallilingasugur,
Linagasugur
584122
3 RK733893937IN Shri 21-01- 01-02-
Ramaliangappa 2017 2017
S/o Shri
Nagappa,
Kallilingasugur,
584122
4 RK733893923IN Shri 21-01- 01-02-
Ramaliangappa 2017 2017
S/o Shri
Nagappa,
Kallilingasugur,
584122
5 RK733893645IN Shri 21-01- 01-02-
Sharanappa S/o 2017 2017
Shri
Shanmukhappa
(Mukappa),
Kallilingasugur-
584122
6 EX335939278IN Smt.Laxmi W/o 19-01- 01-02-
Shri Ravi, R/o 2017 2017
Bhoopur Tanda,
PO:Kallilingasu
gur 584122
12 OA 579/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
It is therefore alleged that Shri Amajeppa while working as GDS BPM Kallilingasugur BO a/w Lingasugur MDG has failed to make delivery of above articles to their respective addressees/addresses and has failed to follow the provisions of Rule 10 of Book of Rules for Branch Offices and thereby Shri Amajeppa exhibiting lack of integrity and devotion to duty contravened the provisions of Rule-21 of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules-2011."
7. Inquiry Officer held that the Article of charge No.2 levelled against the applicant is not proved but the Articles of charge No.1, 3 and 4 levelled against the applicant are proved. Considering the Inquiry Officer's report and the representation submitted by the applicant to the said report, Disciplinary Authority passed the penalty order removing the applicant from engagement with immediate effect vide order dated 18.12.2020. It is the specific case of the applicant that the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to pass the penalty order (Annexure A4) sans issuing disagreement note inasmuch as Article of charge No.2 is concerned, where the Inquiry Officer has held that the said charge is not 13 OA 579/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH proved. Being aggrieved the applicant has preferred an appeal under the provisions of Rule 13(2) of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 now called as the Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020, raising several grounds. The said appeal has been rejected observing that the said appeal was preferred after six months of delivery of the punishment, with a request to condone the delay; the appeal preferred belatedly after three months without assigning any reasons, cannot be condoned. Observing so, without going into the merits of the case, the appeal has been rejected. As could be seen from the appeal memo dated 23.06.2021 (Annexure A5), the applicant has stated the reasons for delay as under:
"As the gravity of the penalty come as a blow from the sky, the appellant has lost peace of mind and the chemistry of turmoil is still continued and the appellant was not in position to apply mind and prepare and submit appeal within the period of limitation due to mental worries preparation of appeal was started in consultation and with the help of his good wishers and resulted in delay. The appellant prays to condone the delay in preferring the appeal, the appellant begs to pray as under."
14 OA 579/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
8. Further, even in the prayer column the applicant has sought for condoning the delay and after condonation of delay to consider the appeal judiciously with compassionate view. It is evident that the delay was of three months in preferring the appeal. Indeed, it is not a case of no reasons or of no prayer for condonation of delay. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Authority ought to have taken the delay issue with a liberal view but on hyper technicalities dismissing the case without condoning the delay was not justifiable. The Appellate Authority ought to have considered the matter on merits of the case condoning the delay. Further on revision filed before the Revisional Authority, the matter has been considered on merits with respect to the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority without whispering about the challenge made to the order of the Appellate Authority.
9. Rule 14 of the Rules provides for period of limitation for filing an appeal. In terms of the said rules, no appeal shall be 15 OA 579/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH entertained unless it is submitted within three months from the date of which appellant receives the copy of the order appealed against. Proviso to the said Rule reads thus:
"Provided that the Appellate Authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period, if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not submitting the appeal in time."
It is thus clear that power to condone the delay beyond the period of three months prescribed for filing the appeal is conferred on the Appellate Authority. The said discretionary power has to be exercised judiciously having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case with a pragmatic view to ensure that substantive rights of the parties are not defeated at the threshold on hyper technicalities. In our considered view, the Appellate Authority has not exercised the power in a justifiable manner.
10. Rule-19 of the Rules provides for filing revision. Revision petition was filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority confirmed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay without going 16 OA 579/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH into merits of the case. That being the position, the Revisional Authority without expressing any opinion on the order of the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority rejecting the revision petition. The power of Revisional Authority is not co-extensive with the power of Appellate Authority unlike Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which specifically provides that an application for revision shall be dealt with in the same manner as if it were an appeal under the said Rules. It is true that suo moto revision may be carried out by the Revisional Authority and revise an order made under the Rules. But in a proceeding where the Appellate Authority has not analysed the case on merits, appropriate course would have been to examine the rejection of the appeal by the Appellate Authority, whether was justifiable. Examining the validity of the order of the Disciplinary Authority ignoring the challenge made to the order of the Appellate Authority, cannot be countenanced. Power of Appellate Authroity are wide compared to Revisional Authority. The power of appreciation of evidence is vested with the Appellate authority. When the statutory Rules provide hierarchy of authorities in a 17 OA 579/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH preferential manner, that cannot be deviated in non-exercise of statutory functions on technical manner. In the whole process, the right of appeal of the applicant should not become redundant. The object of justice delivery system should be achieved in letter and spirit
11. For the reasons aforesaid, we pass the following:
ORDER
1) The Orders passed by the Appellate Authority dated 11.01.2022 (Annexure A6) and Revisional Authority dated 04.07.2022 (Annexure A8) passed by Respondents No.2, are set aside.
2) The matter is restored to the file of Respondent No.2 to reconsider the matter on merits condoning the delay in filing the appeal after providing an opportunity of hearing to the applicant and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order in an expedite manner, in any event not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
18 OA 579/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
3) The applicant is directed to appear before the Appellate Authority- Respondent No.2 on 10.09.2024 at 3.00 pm and shall take further orders.
4) All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open
5) OA stands disposed of in terms of above.
No order as to costs.
(DR.SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.