Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
U O I And Ors vs Pratibha Hada And Anr on 2 January, 2018
Author: K.S. Jhaveri
Bench: K.S. Jhaveri
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21144 / 2012
1. Union of India through its Secretary to the Government of
India, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication and
Information Technology, 20, Ashoka Road, Dak Bhawan, New
Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur.
3. Post Master General, Southern Region, Ajmer.
4. Director Postal Services, Southern Region, Ajmer.
5. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kota Postal Division,
Kota.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Pratibha Hada wife of Shri Laxman Singh Hada, aged about 52
years, resident of 151, Ballabh Badi, Kota. Presently working as
Postal Assistant, Saving Bank Control Organisation, Head Post
Officer, Chittorgarh.
----Respondent-Applicant
2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.B. Sharma
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS
Order
02/01/2018
By way of this petition, the department has challenged the
judgment and order of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate
Authority as well as Revisional Authority whereby the punishment
of the respondent has been converted to minor penalty.
We have heard counsel for the petitioners.
(2 of 5) [CW-21144/2012] The allegations against the respondent are as under:-
"The respondents have filed reply. In the reply, it has been stated that the applicant is working at Kota station since the date of her appointment i.e. from 18.10.1978 to 17.3.2005 in different capacity in different post offices. It is further stated that the applicant had worked at kota Station during the entire service of 26 1/2 years except the period of 50 days w.e.f. 25.12.1997 to 13.02.1998. The applicant was only transferred to Bhilwara Head Post Office in the year 1995 but she remained on leave after relinquishing of charge at Kota from 02.08.1995 to 24.12.1997. It is further stated that while working as Postal Assistant (SBCO) Kota Head Post Office, there were substantial complaints against the applicant regarding failing to maintain the office decorum, frequent use of unparliamentary language during working hours, defiance of orders of supervisors and quarreling with supervisors and other colleagues. It is further stated that aggrieved with the behaviour of the applicant, staff of Kota Head Post Office, where the applicant was working, as given a Memorandum dated 27.09.2004, in which it was requested to transfer the applicant from Kota Head Post Office so that the staff of the Kota Head Post Office may get relief from her rude and undisciplined behaviour and working environment of kota Head Post Office could improve. Copy of the Memorandum dated 27.09.2005 is placed on record as Annexure R/1. From perusal of the Memorandum, it appears that staff of Kota Head Post Office has threatened to proceed on taken strike on 29.09.2004. If the applicant is not shifted immediately. According to the respondents, the Memorandum received from the staff was got inquired into and the allegations levelled against the applicant by the staff of Kota Head Post Office were found genuine and accordingly in order to ensure smooth functioning of Kota Head Post Office, the applicant was immediately deputed from Kota Head Post Office to N.G. Mandi head post office. The fact that the applicant was laced under suspension and a charge sheet was also issued have also been admitted. The fact that the suspension order of the applicant was revoked on 16.03.2005 has also been admitted. The reason given by the Review committee to revoke the suspension was that there is no justification for her prolonged suspension and also recommended to post her in another office of the station. Copy of the minutes of the Review committee dated 10.1.2005 has been placed on record as Annexure R/3. It was pursuant to the recommendations made by the Review committee that Respondent No.4 revoked the suspension of the (3 of 5) [CW-21144/2012] applicant vide order dated 16.3.2005 (Annexure A/2). The respondents have stated that the applicant has completed her post tenure at Kota and the Suspension Review Committee has also recommended to post her in another office in station, as such, impugned order was passed. It is further stated that one post of Postal Assistant (SBCO), Kota has been abolished on 17.03.2005 on the recommendations of the Screening Committee in connection with direct recruitment plan for the year 2002 vide Circle office Jaipur letter dated 28.07.2004 and the applicant has since been relieved and struck off from the strength of Kota Head Post Office vide order 22.03.2005 (Annexure A/3) and the same was given to the applicant on 23.03.2005. Thus according to the respondents, the applicant is no more on the strength of the Head Office Kota and there is no post where the applicant could be accommodated.
Taking into consideration the allegations against the respondent, in our considered opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper. At this stage it would be relevant to quote the finding recorded by the Tribunal which reads as under:-
"9. Heard the rival submissions of the respective parties and perused the documents on record. As per Annexure A/5, the applicant made a representation on 24.06.2003 with regard to the smoking by the Postmaster in the office due to which she complained that there is suffocation in the hall and that since she suffer from allergy and bronchitis, therefore, she find it very difficult to work. Similarly she brought this fact again to the notice of superior officer vide request dated 30.07.2003 (Annexure A/6). She also made a complaint against Shri G.S. Nathawat vide letter dated 27.09.2004 (Annexure A/4). However, on a complaint by Shri G.S. Nathawat, the applicant was issued charge memo dated 06.12.2004 (Annexure A/7). Thereafter, an Inquiry officer was appointed who conducted the departmental inquiry and submitted the report. The applicant was supplied copy of the inquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the inquiry report and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the charge against the applicant is proved and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement (Annexure A/2). The Appellate Authority also considered the points raised by the applicant in her appeal and after careful examining the appeal, rejected it vide order dated 23.03.2007 (Annexure A/3). Thereafter the (4 of 5) [CW-21144/2012] applicant preferred a Revision Petition before the Revising Authority and the Revising Authority carefully considered the petition, taken into account the entire case file. In the Revision order dated 31.03.2008, he has mentioned that smoking of Shri G.S. Nathawat, Post Master, Head Post Office, Kota does not permit the applicant to abuse and misbehave with office incharge, who was sufficiently senior to her in service and age as well. Obviously the words admitted to have been spoken by her were against the discipline and office decorum. Such conduct is unacceptable. He has also stated that the joint memorandum dated 27.09.2004 submitted by staff of Kota Head Office was submitted two days after the said incidence and was supportive evidence to the applicant's mis-conduct. After considering all the aspects, the Revising Authority felt that the quantum of penalty awarded was rather harsh and not exactly commensurate with the gravity of charge. Therefore, he modified the punishment of compulsory retirement to reduction of her pay in the time scale of pay of Rs.4500-125-7000/- by five stages from Rs.5875/- to Rs.5250/- for a period of three years with effect from the date of her joining. It was further directed that the applicant will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing her future increments of pay.
10. After going through the averments of both the parties and after careful perusal of the documents on record, we are of the opinion that Shri G.S. Nathawat was in the habit of smokin in the office and being objected by the applicant, he made a complaint to the superior authorities about the conduct of the applicant. Even for the sake of arguments, it is held that charge leveled against the applicant is proved, in our considered opinion, the punishment awarded to the applicant is shockingly disproportionate to the proved mis-conduct of the applicant. Therefore, we quash the order of the Revising Authority dated 31.03.2008 (Annexure A/1) and the order of the Appellate Authority issued vide Memo dated 23.03.2007 (Annexure A/3) and order of the Disciplinary Authority issued vide Memo dated 16.01.2007 (Annexure A/2). We are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the applicant is awarded any of the minor penalties as prescribed under the rules. Therefore, we direct the respondents to pass a fresh order imposing any of the minor penalties against the applicant. This exercise of (5 of 5) [CW-21144/2012] imposing minor penalty against the applicant shall be completed expeditiously but in any case not later than a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. No case is made out for interference.
Hence, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. The same is dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR VYAS), J. (K.S. JHAVERI), J.
A.Sharma/32