Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Kailasam vs M/O Communications on 18 August, 2022
1 OA 1610/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA NO.1610/2015
Dated Thursday, the 18th day of August Two Thousand Twenty Two
CORUM: HON'BLE MR. T.JACOB, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
&
HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
S.Kailasam,
S/o Sadayappa Reddi,
No.1/6, Bajanaikoil Street, Surai Post,
Banavaram 632 505 ...Applicant
By Advocate M/s M.Gnanasekar
Vs.
1.Union of India,
Rep., by Postmaster General,
Chennai City Region, Chennai 600 002.
2.Superintendent of Post offices,
Arakkonam Division,
Arakkonam 631 001.
3.Sri.R.Rangarajan,
Then Officiating Inspector Posts,
Walajapet Sub Division, Walajapet 632513
now Office Assistant O/o Supdt. Of Post offices,
Arakkonam Division, Arakkonam 631 001. ...Respondents
By Advocate Mr.Su.Srinivasan
2 OA 1610/2015
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) By this OA, the applicant is challenging the order passed by the 3 rd respondent dated 30.09.2006 whereby the applicant has been removed from service. According to the applicant he has not submitted any appeal against the said order. However, he has submitted the revision petition raising the grounds that the order of dismissal/removal has been issued/passed by the authority who is not competent to pass such order under Rule 5 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2001. Therefore, the order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the 1st respondent is bad in law. Hence he has impugned both the orders in the present OA and sought the following relief:
"(i)To set aside the Order No.VIG/pet/1-13/2015/CCR dated 31.08.2015 passed by the 1st respondent.
(ii)To set aside the Order No.WLJ/GDS/MD/Surai/R-10 dated 30.09.2006 passed by the 3rd respondent
(iii)To direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service immediately with all attendant benefits, continuity in service and to treat the period of "PUT OFF DUTY" as duty for all purposes."
2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are as under:
The applicant was appointed on 10.10.1979 as an Extra-Departmental Delivery Agent/Mail Carrier in Surai Branch Post Office a/w Banavaram SO. In the year 2003, he was placed under put off duty w.e.f 20.11.2003. A charge sheet under Rule 10 of GDS (C&E) Rules, 2001 was issued in Memo containing three articles of charge dated 28.08.2006. The applicant contended that he has been removed from service on 30.09.2006 and he has submitted that he has not filed any appeal to challenge the said order. However, he has preferred an application for revision dated 27.12.2014 under Rule 19(1) (i) of GDS (C&E) Rules 2011 on the main ground that the 3 OA 1610/2015 authority who had passed the order dated 30.09.2006 is not competent to award any of the penalties specified in Rule 9 of GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011. The applicant has taken a plea that Shri R.Rangarajan while officiating as Inspector Posts, Walajapet without any power or jurisdiction had issued the Memo dated 30.09.2006 awarding the extreme punishment of Removal from Service with immediate effect. The applicant has impleaded him as a party respondent-3 by name.
4. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their counter. To counter the allegations levelled by the applicant, the respondents have contended that after receipt of the memo of articles of charges, the applicant himself had admitted the misappropriation and credited the amount of Rs.14,200 towards 71 OAP money orders.
The respondents have also contended that the applicant had committed these frauds by way of non payment of 71 OAP money orders during the period from 24.05.2001 to 18.11.2003 and this has been noticed by the respondent department when complaint was received from one Shri Gajendran about some malpractices in payment of money orders at Surai BO. The respondents also contended that the complaint was received against the applicant about fraudulent payment of old age pension money orders meant for OAP beneficiaries reported to be dead. Against the said complaint, after detailed investigation and verification, charge sheet was issued under Rule 3 of GDS (C&E) Rules 2001 by the 3 rd respondents, vide memo dated 28.02.2006 for three articles of charge. Having received the chargesheet the applicant has submitted his representation dated nil and admitted the charges. However, in order to give an opportunity of oral hearing, the disciplinary authority has appointed the Inquiry Officer (IO) and Presenting Officer (PO). The IO conducted a preliminary hearing on 4 OA 1610/2015 19.05.2006 and before the IO, the applicant has appeared and admitted all three articles of charge unconditionally. Based on the unconditional admission of the applicant, the inquiry officer submitted his report on 31.05.2006 holding all the three charges as proved. Considering the IO's report and representation dated 12.06.2006 of the applicant, the 3 rd respondent has imposed the penalty of removal from service vide his memo dated 30.09.2006. The respondents have contended that against the said order the applicant has preferred an appeal on 07.11.2006 before the 2 nd respondent and after consideration, the same has been rejected, vide order dated 28.05.2007. Against the said rejection order the applicant has preferred a petition dated 08.08.2007 requesting for reinstatement. However, the same has also been turned down and the Director of Postal Services, Chennai City Region has rejected the same on 12.09.2007 and confirmed the orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. The said order has been received by the applicant on 09.10.2007 and after a lapse of seven years approximately, the applicant has filed a revision petition on 27.12.2014 wherein he has submitted that he has not preferred any appeal and requested for reinstatement after giving personal hearing. However, the said revision petition has been rejected on 31.08.2015 on the ground of abnormal delay. It is also contended that though the applicant has been acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sholinghur in CC No.95/2000 on 06.01.2004, it is not an acquittal on merit, but it is on the benefit of doubt. To deny the allegation that the order of removal passed by the 3rd respondent who is not competent to issue the same, the respondents have placed their reliance upon the order passed by the Hon. Supreme Court in the matter of Selvaraj Vs. Lt.Governor of A & N Island, Portblair 1998 (4) SCC 231, Secretary cum Chief Engineer Vs. Hari 5 OA 1610/2015 OM Sharma (1998 AIR SC 2909) and the order passed by this Tribunal in OA 807/2010. The respondents have also placed their reliance upon the judgments of the Hon. Supreme Court in the matter of UOI Vs. Ganayutham 1997 SC (L&S) 1806, in the matter of UOI Vs. K.G.Sony 2006 SCC (L&S) 1568, Chairman MD, VSP & Ors Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu in 2008 2 SCC (L&S) 311, North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. H.H.Pujar reported in 2001 SCC L&S 251, UP State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Suresh Chand Sharma in CA 3086/2007, Municipal Committee Bahadurgha Vs. Krishnan Bihari & Ors in AIR 1996 SC 1249 and submitted that the courts cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed.
5. Heard both sides and perused the OA along with relevant records.
6. It is not in dispute that the applicant has been engaged as Extra- Departmental Delivery Agent way back in the year 1979 and till 2001 there was no single complaint against the services of the applicant. The amount which has been misappropriated against the said so-called money orders, i.e., Rs.14200 has been surrendered by the applicant immediately after the issue of the charge memo and the applicant also admitted the said charges. Even in the inquiry, the applicant has admitted the said charges unconditionally. The applicant has rendered almost 22 years continuous long service in the department. It is to be observed that the reason behind the said alleged act as seen from the applicant's appeal dated 07.11.2006 to the 2 nd respondent is that his daughter was suffering from cancer and he was in need of money for her medical treatment. Though he has borrowed money beyond his capacity/control, however, it was not sufficient thereby he has made the said mistake just to save the life of her daughter. However, he could not save the life of his daughter. Therefore, he has requested mercy. Though the appellate 6 OA 1610/2015 authority has noticed this aspect, while rejecting the applicant's appeal for reinstatement, he has not at all considered the long standing service rendered by the applicant. In the circumstances, it is necessary for the appellate authority to consider the request of the applicant on humanitarian grounds. While rejecting the revision petition also, the ground raised by the applicant that the authority who has passed the order of removal is not competent to award any of the penalties specified under Rule 9 of the GDS GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011 has not been considered and the same has been rejected on the ground of delay. It is to be noted that the legal plea is always open for the delinquent, though it has to be followed with time frame. However, it is also expected from the respondent department as a model employer, that the authorities, i.e., the disciplinary authority, appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have to follow the rules prescribed under the Act, while rejecting his revision, without going into the merit and without considering the request of the applicant. In our considered opinion, the orders passed by the authorities are not sustainable in the eye of law. Hence both the orders need to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly the order dated 30.09.2006 and 31.08.2015 are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the authorities to reconsider the case of the applicant in view of the circumstances on humanitarian grounds and on the grounds raised by him in his revision petition and take an appropriate decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. OA is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Lata Baswaraj Patne) (T. Jacob) Member (J) 18.08.2022 Member (A) MT