Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
J. Raja Rao vs The Chief Postmaster General on 21 November, 2008
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH : AT HYDERABAD OA No.733 of 2008 Date of Order : 21.11.2008.
Between:
J. Raja Rao, S/o. Late Rajappudu, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Retired Superintendent of Post Offices, Sanga Reddy Division, R/o. Flat No. 12, Block 8, Prajay Apartments, Kompally, Secunderabad ........Applicant And
1. The Chief Postmaster General, Andhra Pradesh Circle, Dak Sadan, Hyderabad- 500 001;
2. The Director General, Department of Posts- India, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi- 110 001;
3. The Postmaster General, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad- 500 001. ....Respondents Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. M. Venkanna Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. G. Jaya Prakash Babu, Sr.CGSC.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. LAKSHMANA REDDY,VICE-CHAIRMAN THE HON'BLE MR.R. SANTHANAM : MEMBER (ADMN) (Order per Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE P. LAKSHMANA REDDY,V.C. )
---
Heard Mr. M. Venkanna, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. G. Jaya Prakash Babu, Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This application is filed by a retired Superintendent of Post Offices seeking to quash and set aside the Disciplinary Proceedings Memo dated 14.08.2008 as being violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the law, arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and discriminatory an contravening the spirit of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pension rules.
3. The applicant entered into service of the respondents organization on 22.11.1967. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2008. Just before his retirement, on 19.08.2008, the applicant was served with Charge Memo issued under Rule 14 (1) of CCS ( CCA) Rules. The Articles of charges framed against the applicant are as follows:-
Article-I That the said Sri J. Rajarao while functioning as Supdt. Of Post Offices, Wanaparthy Division during the period from 6.1.2005 to 24.1.2007, during his vigilance visit to Telkapalli S.O. on 26.10.2005 found an amount of Rs.44,697.40 short in the office cash balances. Sri J. Rajarao did not suspend on the spot Sri A. Chennaiah, the then SPM, Telkapalli who is responsible for shortage of Govt. money as required by Rule 17(g) (ii) of Postal Manual Volume-III. Sri A. Chennaiah, SPM committed further fraud in three RD accounts on 29.10.2005 while the past work verification was going on. Had the official been suspended on 26.10.2005 when shortage of huge cash was found, further frauds committed by the official on 29.10.05 could have been averted.
It is, therefore, alleged that the said Sri J. Rajarao, has contravened the provisions of Rule 17(g)(ii) of Postal Manual Volume-III and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Sri J. Rajarao, did not report the SB/RD frauds committed by Sri A. Chennaiah the then SPM, Telkapalli sub post office to the police as required by Rule 80 of Postal Manual Volume-III despite instructions issued by the D.P.S. Hyderabad Region on 24.12.2006.
It is, therefore, alleged that the said Sri J. Rajarao, has contravened the provisions of Rule 80 of Postal Manual Volume-III and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-III That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Sri J. Rajarao, did not ensure timely inspection of Telkapalli S.O. By the SDI(P), Nagerkurnool sub division during the year 2005. The SDI (P) Nagarkurnool Sub Division did not inspect Telkapalli S.O. Within one year from the date of last inspection as required by Rule 300 of Postal Manual Volume-VIII leading to the fraud committed by Sri A. Chennaiah, SPM, Telklapalli S.O. Sri J. Raja Rao who is responsible for administration of the whole division did not exercise proper supervision over the inspection work of his subordinates as required by Rule 163(1) of Postal Manual Volume-VIII. He did not take all possible steps to ensure devotion to duty by the SDI(P), Nagarkurnool as required by Rule 3(2(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
It is, therefore, alleged that the said Sri J. Rajarao, has contravened the provisions of Rule 163(1) of Postal Manual Volume-VIII and Rule 3(2)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-IV That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Sri J. Rajarao, did not ensure to watch non-receipt of the ECB memos from Telkapalli S.O. And ensure their submission as required by Rule 150 of Postal Manual Volume-VIII. Sri Rajarao who is responsible for administration of the whole division did not exercise proper supervision over the work of his subordinates as required by Rule 163(1) of Postal Manual Volume-VIII. He did not take all possible steps to ensure devotion to duty by the SPM, Telkapalli and AsP (Hqr) Divisional Office, Wanaparthy as required by Rule 3(2)(i) of CCS (Conduct), Rules, 1964.
It is, therefore, alleged that the said Sri J. Rajarao, has contravened the provisions of Rule 163(1) of Postal Manual Volume-VIII and Rule 3(2)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-V That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Sri J. Rajarao, did not inform R.O., about the pendency of OA No.174/05 in C.A.T., Hyderabad filed by Sri P. Ramesh Kumar, Postman, Wanaparthy H.O., who was selected for the post of Postman under relaxation of recruitment rules and who was continuing on the stay orders of the Hon'ble C.A.T. and provisionally permitted him for the LGOs examination which resulted in selection of the candidate to PA cadre in review of the failed SC/ST candidates for appointment.
It is, therefore, alleged that the said Sri J. Rajarao, by not informing R.O. About the OA No.174/05 in Hon'ble C.A.T has failed to maintain devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-VI That the said Sri J. Rajarao while functioning as Supdt. Of Post Offices, Sangareddy Division during the period from 24.1.2007 to 12.6.07 did not ensure to keep watch over non-receipt of the ECB memos and SPM's monthly reports from SPM, M.I.G. Colony S.O. The SPM M.I.G. Colony S.O. Did not submit S.M.Rs and E.C.B. Memos as required by Rule 136 and 150 of Postal Manual Volume-VIII. Sri J. Rajarao who is responsible for administration of the whole division did not exercise proper supervision over the work of his subordinates as required by Rule 163(1) of Postal Manual Volume-VIII. He did not make all possible steps to ensure devotion to duty by the SPM, MIG Colony and ASP (R) Sangareddy Division as required by Rule 3(2)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
It is, therefore, alleged that the said Sri J. Rajarao, has contravened the provisions of Rule 163(1) of Postal Manual Volume-VIII and Rule 3(2)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-VII That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Sri J. Rajarao did not ensure visits by the SDI(P), R.C. Puram Sub division to MIG Colony S.O. at which a huge fraud had occurred as required by Rule 163 and 164 of Postal Manual Volume-VIII. He did not take all possible steps to ensure devotion to duty by the SDI(P), R.C. Puram Sub Division as required by Rule 3(2)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
It is, therefore, alleged that the said Sri J. Rajarao, has contravened the provisions of Rule 163 & 164 of Postal Manual Volume-VIII and Rule 3(2)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article- VIII That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Sri J. Rajarao did not point out during his visits to the R.C. Puram HE MDG on 24.5.07 and MIG Colony on 7.6.07, the non-maintenance of Register of collection cheques. The R.C. Puram HE MDG S.O. and in MIG colony S.O did not maintain the Register of collection cheques in the proforma SB/CQE-15 (C) in respect of the cheques received at the counters and cheques received from other offices as prescribed in para 10 of appendix I to Post Office Savins Bank Manual Volume-I. Sri J. Rajarao who is required to see during his visit at the above said offices, whether the work is being properly conducted and the officials perform their duties properly as required by Rule 234 of Postal Manual Volume-VIII, did not point out the irregularities. He did not take all possible steps to ensure devotion to duty by the SPM R.C. Puram H.E. MDG and SPM MIG Colony S.O as required by Rule 3(2)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
It is, therefore, alleged that the said Sri J. Rajarao, has contravened the provisions of Rule 234 of Postal Manual Volume-VIII and Rule 3(2)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-IX That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Sri J. Rajarao did not object supply of remittances to MIG Colony S.O by R.C. Puram HE MDG even though sufficient credit is not available. The monthly limits upto which M.I.G. Colony S.O may indent for funds on R.C. Puram H.E. M.D.G was authorised as required by Rule 143 of Postal Manual Volume-VIII. The R.C. Puram H.E. MDG remitted cash to MIG colony S.O. without availability of credit during the period from 22.3.2007 to 30.3.2007. Sri J. Rajarao during his visit, who is expected to see that the work is being conducted properly as required by Rule 234 of Postal Manual Volume-VIII, did not object supply of remittances to MIG Colony S.O by R.C. Puram HE MDG. He did not take all possible steps to ensure devotion to duty by the SPM R.C. Puram H.E. MDG as required by Rule 3(2)(i) of CCS(Condcut) Rules, 1964.
It is, therefore, alleged that the said Sri J. Rajarao, has contravened the provisions of Rule 234 of Postal Manual Volume-VIII and Rule 3(2)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-X That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Sri J. Rajarao during the inspection of the office of the SDI(P), R.C. Puram sub division on 30.5.2007 did not object improper maintenance of the register of S.B. Higher withdrawal memos received and verified. The Mail overseer R.C. Puram Sub division did not enter the particulars of the higher withdrawals memos verified by him in the weekly diaries as required by Rule 355 of Postal Manual Volume-VIII. Sri J. Rajarao during the inspection of the office of the SDI(P), R.C. Puram sub division did not object imporoper maintenance of the register of S.B higher withdrawal memos received and verified and the non-incorporation of the particulars of higher value withdrawal memos verified in the diary as required by Rule 167 of Postal Manual Volume-VIII. He did not take all possible steps to ensure devotion to duty by the SDI(P) R.C. Puram and Mail Overseer-II R.C. Puram Sub Division as required by Rule 3(2)(i) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.
It is, therefore, alleged that the said Sri J. Rajarao, has contravened the provisions of Rule 167 of Postal Manual Volume-VIII and Rule 3(2)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
4. The applicant submitted his explanation on 28.08.2008. Thereafter, an inquiry officer is appointed.
5. The grievance of the applicant is that on account of the said disciplinary proceedings, his retiral benefits are withheld. The applicant contended that as the alleged lack of supervision attributed to the applicant was of the year 2005 onwards, nothing prevented the respondents from initiating disciplinary proceedings and concluding the same before his retirement and, therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
6. We are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that there was any abnormal delay which warrants quashing of the charges. Here the irregularities commenced are from 29.10.2005 and the said irregularities continued till the year 2008, till they are detected and, therefore, we do not find any abnormal delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings which warrants quashing of the charge. This Tribunal has got a very limited jurisdiction to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings initiated. Therefore, this is not a fit case to quash the charges. But, however, the concern of the applicant is that the disciplinary proceedings may be dragged on for the years together and during that period he will be deprived of the retiral benefits. In order to remove such apprehension, we consider that it is necessary to give a direction to the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within six months at any cost as retiral benefits are withheld. The applicant shall co-operate with the enquiry officer to complete the enquriy within four months from this day to enable the President to pass final orders within six months from this day.
7. Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed of directing the respondents to complete the enquiry within a period of four months from this day to enable the President to pass final orders within six months from this day failing which the respondents shall have to pay the retiral benefits pending the enquiry. The applicant shall co-operate with the enquiry officer to complete the enquiry within four months. The O.A. is disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(R.SANTHANAM) (P. LAKSHMANA REDDY)
Member (A) VICE- CHAIRMAN
Dated 21th November, 2008
(Dictated in open court)