Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Ramapati Barman vs D/O India Post on 18 April, 2018
1
I10ENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
IcQLKATA BENCH
QEigIfljAjpjjcatjo No. "
of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:
An application under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals act, 1985;
-And-
IN THE MATTER OF:
The Central Services (Classification,
Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965;
-And-
IN THE MATTER OF:
The aggressive order of Suspension
dated 18" February, 2015 placing the
applicant under suspension in the plea
of contemplation of a disciplinary
proceeding;
-And-
2
IN THE MATTER OF:
The purported charge sheet dated 91h
March, 2015 issued against the applicant
containing several frivolous charges;
-And-
IN THE MATTER OF:
Gross illegalities on the part of the
respondent authorities in unnecessarily
initiating a disciplinary proceeding
against the applicant;
-And-
IN THE MATTER OF:
Gross arbitrariness and colourable
exercise of power on the part of the
respondents in proceeding with the
disciplinary proceeding initiated against
the applicant in clear breach of the
relevant rules and also in violation of
the established principles of natural
justice;
3
-And-
IN THE MATTER OF:
Arbitrary refusal on the part of the
respondents to pay adequate and
appropriate subsistence allowance to the
applicant in accordance with the
applicable rules and not disposing of the
appeal for revocation of suspension by
an appropriate appellate order;
-And-
IN THE MATTER OF:
The Purported order dated 14th June,
2016 inflicting Punishment of removal
of service upon the applicant;
-And-
IN THE MATTER OF:
The appeal preferred by the applicant.
from the order of removal from service
passed on 141h June, 2016;
\JQ
-
p
4
-And-
I IN THE MAUER OF:
The purported order passed by the
Appellate Authority on 20th March, 2017
dismissing the appeal preferred by the
applicant from the order of removal
from service;
-And-
IN THE MATrER OF:
Gross inaction on the part of the
respondent authorities in not taking
suitable measures for expeditious
disposal of the review petition filed by
the petitioner assailing the order of the
Appellate Authority passed on 20th
March, 2017 confirming the order of
removal from service • passed by the
disciplinary authority on 141h June, 2015;
-And-
•.
S
IN THE MATI'ER OF:
Ramapati Barman, son of Late Surendra
Nath Barman, residing at Village & Post
Office- Garhbari, Police Station-
Bhupatinagar, District- Purba
Medinipur, PIN- 721626;
. Applicant/Petitioner
-VERSUS-
Union of India, service through
the Secretary, Ministry of
Communication & Information
Technology, having office at Dak
Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001;
The Chief Post Master General,.
West Bengal Circle, having office at
Yogayog Bhawan (51h Floor), P-36, C.R.
Avenue, Kolkata- 700012;
3, The Postmaster General, South
Bengal Region, Chowranghee, office at
E.
Yogayog Bhawan (7th Floor), P-36, C.R.
Avenue, Kolkata- 700012;
The Director of Postal Services,
South Bengal Region, having his office
at Yogayog Bhawan (711 Floor), P-36,
C.R. Avenue, Kolkata- 700012;
The Superintendent of Post
Offices, Contai Division, having office at
&
Post Office-.. Contai, District- Purba
Medinipur, PIN-- 721401;
Sri S.S. Hazra, Inquiry Officer &
Retired S.P. OS., Tamluk Division, 22,
West Avenue, Bidhan Nagar, Post
Office- Midnapore, District- Paschim
Medinipur, PIN- 721101.
o.a. 118.2018
No. O.A. 350/0118/2018 Date of order: 18.4.2018
Present: Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Pattnaik, Judicial Member
For the Applicant : Mr. B. Chatterjee, Counsel
For the Respondents : None
ORDER(OraI)
A.K. Pattnaik, Judicial Member:
Heard Mr. B. Chatterjee, Ld. Counsel for the applicant.
2. This Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
"a) The order dated 14.6.2016 passed by the respondent No. 5 being Annexure "A-14" hereof be set aside and quashed.
The respondent and each one of them be directed to reinstate the applicant in the post of PostalAstá'ntin Contai Costal Division with full back wages;
`P Costs of and/or:ináidentaF1his-applictior'be V \ directed to be borne by the respondent authôriti9i\\ Such furth'er'hd/or1óthr'qd( ofdrs bepassed and/or direction or directions be givei, as Ibnb al m deem fit and proper."
IC
a. As submitted forCby Mr.Ghatt& J.Counse1for the applicant, the
\<'J/ f \ z /
\y Postal Division in
applicant was an
Midnapore District on 22.8J990. He was.confirhed o 18.3.1993. Divisional Gradation list showing senirity of-.th applicanfjn'Postal Assistant cadre was published on 29.11.2007. The applicant officiated in the post of IPOS Contai II Sub-Division as an untrained and unskilled candidate in ad-hoc arrangement. On 18.6.2010 he was relieved from the officiating arrangement to the post of IPOS, Contai-ll Sub-Division. On 25.5.2010 he was again ordered to work as officiating Inspect of Post of Contai II Sub Division in addition to officiating charge of IPOS Egra Sub-Division. Thereafter he was relieved of his additional duty of IPOS Contai-ll Sub-Division. On 19.2.2015 he was placed under suspension followed by a charge-sheet. He submitted an appeal before the appellate authority for revocation of his suspension. On 2.11.2015 he preferred a revision petition against the order of the appellate authority.
o.a. 118.208 Mr, Chatterjee, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the grievance of the applicant would be more or less addressed if a specific order is passed by directing the concerned authority i.e. respondent No. 2 to dispose of the review petition dated 16.8.2017 within a specific time frame.
Therefore, I dispose of this O.A. by directing the respondent No. 2 that if any such review petition as claimed by the applicant has been preferred on 16.8.2017 and the same is still pending consideration, then the same may be considered and disposed of within .a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Though I have not entered into the merits of the case, still then I hope and trust that after such consideration if the aplicaptigrievance is found to be .'• i X genuine then expeditious steps may be,tkeôythe concerned respondent No. 2 ..- , k '. .' --..
within a further period of -6weeksfpti4ate-ot such.co'sideration to extend eantimth said representation the benefits to the applint. II stated to have beenrf&redoq9 disposed of then the result thereof be c6mr&(r1ta'te'd to the a period of 2 weeks 1 •-.__,•______.. .,' / I / from the date of receipt of a coy ot thorder.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the O.A. is disposed of. As prayed for by Mr. Chatterjee, Ld. Counsel a copy of this order along with paper book be transmitted to the respondent No. 2 by speed post for which Mr. Chatterjee undertakes to deposit necessary cost in the Registry by the next week.
(A.K. Pattnaik) Judicial Member sp
-