Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Unknown vs Union Of India Through Secretary ... on 25 April, 2011
Open Court CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD ***** (THIS THE 25th OF APRIL 2011) Honble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J) Original Application No.492 of 2011 (U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985) Rajendra Chaubey aged about 56 years, Son of Sri R.S. Chaubey, R/o 11/127, New Colony Jwala Nagar, Rampur, Posted as S.P.M Moradabad. Applicant Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Communication, Department of Postal, Dak Bhawan, Sanshad Marg, New Delhi. 2. Post Master General Bareilly Region at Bareilly. 3. Director Postal Services, Office of Post Master General Bareilly Division at Bareilly. 4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Moradabad Division at Moradabad. Respondents Present for Applicant : Shri Bhagirathi Tiwari Present for Respondents : Shri R. D. Tewari O R D E R
Heard Shri Bhagirathi Tiwari learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.K. Sharma holding brief of Shri R.D. Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Applicant has filed the present O.A seeking following relief(s):-
1. To issue a writ directions/orders in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.03.2011 (A-1).
2. to issue a writ directions/orders in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to comply with the provisions of FR 53 by passing appropriate order in the matter in increase the subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% from 09.03.2010 and pay the arrears.
3. To consider any other relief which the Honble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. To award the cost of the application throughout.
3. As stated by applicant in his Original Application, he was placed under suspension on 24.10.2009. His contention is that even though period of 90 days from the date of suspension has expired, the respondents have not acted in terms of FR (i) (ii) (a). The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A No. 1524/10. Said O.A was decided in terms of order dated 28.2.2011. By said order, this Tribunal had allowed the O.A. of the applicant with a direction to the respondents to consider his case in terms of F.R. 53 (i) & (ii) and judgment of Honble Supreme Court and pass a reasoned order as a result order dated 28.3.2011 has been passed by the respondents. The said order is purported to be in compliance of the order dated 28.2.2011 passed in O.A. No. 1524/10. A perusal of order reveals that respondents have not considered the claim of the applicant for enhancement of subsistence allowance in terms of F.R. 53 (i) (ii) (a). In terms of provisions of said Rule, the amount of subsistence allowance may be increased by a suitable amount, not exceeding 50 per cent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of the first three months and the same may be reduced notwithstanding 50 per cent existing subsistence allowance if delay is attributable to the suspended Government servant. A perusal of impugned order dated 28.3.2011 reveals that the respondents have not recorded any finding regarding the fact that whether the delay in conclusion of Departmental enquiry is attributable to administrations or to suspended employee, rather no chargesheet has yet been issued to the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that in the impugned order dated 28.3.2011, there is a finding that the applicant was found directly responsible to facilitate the fraud and loss caused to the Government. Infact, it is an allegation contained against the applicant in said paragraphs. The mention of allegations in the impugned order cannot be construed as a finding on attributablity of delay.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 28.3.2011, I find that the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, who has passed the impugned order dated 28.3.2011 has not applied his mind to the provisions of FR 53 (i) (ii) (a). In terms of provisions of said Rule, it was obligatory for him to examine whether the suspension of the applicant was prolonged for the reasons attributable to applicant having not recorded any such finding and having not applied his mind to the provision of FR 53 (i) (ii) (a), Senior Superintendent of Post Offices is not justified in comirs to a conclusion that there is no justification to increase the subsistence allowance of the applicant.
6. Accordingly, impugned order dated 28.3.2011 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to decide the claim of the applicant for enhancement of subsistence allowance in accordance with Rules. While deciding the claim of the applicant, the concerned Authority will record specific finding regarding the attributalibity for prolonged suspension i.e. whether the applicant or administration is responsible for such delay. If delay is not attributable to the applicant. His subsistence allowance would be enhanced as per Rules.
7. For the reasons mentioned above, the O.A. is allowed. No costs.
Member (J) Manish/-
??
??
??
??
4