Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prakash Chandra Bothra vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 February, 2019
Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog, Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ No. 434/2017
Prakash Chandra Bothra S/o Shri Chintamandas, aged about 64
years, R/o Dhani Bazar, Barmer- 344001
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Government of
India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Post,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
2. Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur-
302007
3. Asstt. Director, Postal Services, Rajasthan, Western
Region, Jodhpur- 342001
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Chandra Bothra, in person
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.P. Bohra
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 26/02/2019
1. We have heard the petitioner who appears in person as also the respondent. Record of the DPC held on 29.06.1998 has been perused by us.
2. In the original application filed by the petitioner he pleaded that for purposes of TBOP/BCR he completed 26 years service on 01.06.1998. He made a grievance of persons junior to him granted benefit and he being denied the benefit. He admitted in the petition that he had been granted the BCR benefit in the year 2000.
3. In the reply filed it was indicated that on completing 26 years service petitioner's case was considered at the DPC held on (2 of 2) [CW-434/2017] 26.06.1998 but on account of unsatisfactory record of service and currency of punishment which was stoppage of one increment for a period of one year, he was found to be unsuitable.
4. Vide order dated 13.10.2015 in view of the pleadings relief was denied to the petitioner by the Tribunal.
5. The petitioner filed an application seeking review in which he pleaded that the penalty was subsequently reduced to one of censure and thus the decision of the DPC was illegal.
6. Vide order dated 03.10.2016 the review application has been dismissed on the reasoning that there is no error apparent on the face of the order dated 13.10.2015.
7. It is apparent that the loose pleadings have created problem for the petitioner. Simply put, petitioner's case is that the DPC which met on 29.06.1998 took into account the penalty of stoppage of one increment which was then under its currency period. The penalty got reduced to one of censure. As per the petitioner the penalty of censure has no currency period and thus a review DPC ought to have been held.
8. We agree with the contention of the petitioner.
9. We dispose of the petition directing the respondents to hold a review DPC to re-consider petitioner's entitlement as on 29.06.1998. The review DPC will consider the service record and penalty of censure which was finally inflicted upon the petitioner. Needful shall be done within four months. If the petitioner is held entitled to the benefit under the BCR Scheme from an earlier date he would be granted the same on actual basis.
10. No costs.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ 17-MohitTak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)