Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Yadwinder Singh vs Post Punjab Circle on 27 February, 2023
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1295/2022
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Yadwinder Singh, aged about 38 years, S/o Sh. Atma Singh,
R/o Ward No.1, Preet Nagar, College Road, Mansa, District
Mansa, now Postal Assistant Dasuya HO (under transfer)
(Group-C).
.... Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Kanav Bansal).
Versus
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communication and Technology, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh,
Sandesh Bhawan, Near Hotel Shivalik View, Sector-17
Chandigarh (160017). Email id- ([email protected]).
3. The Postmaster General, Punjab West Region, Sandesh
Bhawan, Near Hotel Shivalik View, Sector-17 Chandigarh
(160017). Email id- (como [email protected]).
4. The Director Postal Services, Punjab West Region,
Chandigarh-160017.
5. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hoshiarpur
Division, Hoshiarpur. 146001.
6. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bathinda
Division, Bathinda-151005.
7. Dheeraj Kumar, appointed as Inquiry Officer cum Assistant
Superintendent of Post Offices (HQ), Bathinda Division,
Bathinda- 151005.
.... Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. Sanjay Goyal).
2
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
1. This O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"8 a. To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 29.11.2022 (Annexure A-9) passed by the respondent No.7 (Inquiry Officer cum Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (HQ), Bathinda Division, Bathinda), whereby ex-parte proceedings were undertaken against the applicant by declaring the stage for submission of list of additional documents and defence witnesses as over.
b. One effected opportunity may kindly be granted to the applicant to appear in the inquiry proceedings either in person or accompanied with DA or through DA alone for submission of list of additional documents and to lead the defence witnesses."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant joined the Department of Posts as Postal Assistant on 01.5.2008. Thereafter, while applicant was working as Postal Assistant Boha Sub-Post Office, Bathinda Division, Bathinda a charge sheet was served upon the applicant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by respondent No.6. The applicant has challenged the said charge sheet before this Tribunal vide O.A No.424/2021, which is pending for final adjudication. As there was no interim relief in the said O.A. the respondents have proceeded with the above said charge sheet against the applicant Sh. Vinod Kumar was appointed 3 as Inquiry Officer. However, the applicant moved an application to the department to change the inquiry officer claiming that the said Vinod Kumar was biased against him. On the request of the applicant the respondent department appointed another Inquiry officer namely Sh. Dheeraj Kumar (respondent No.7) but applicant again claimed he was biased. Inquiry officer in the meantime issued letter dated 27.05.2022 (Annexure A-2) whereby the applicant was directed to attend the inquiry either alone or accompanied with defence assistant on 31.05.2022. Thereafter, another letter was issued on 11.07.2022 (Annexure A-3).
3. Aggrieved against the appointment of respondent No.7 as inquiry officer, the applicant moved an application on dated 23.07.2022 to the respondent No.6 requesting for changing the inquiry officer. But the request of the applicant was not considered vide letter dated 26.08.2022 applicant was directed to join the inquiry proceedings as scheduled. However, dissatisfied with the above said decision dated 26.08.2022, the applicant filed an appeal on dated 29.08.2022 but respondent No.4 vide order dated 31.10.2022 dismissed the same and directed applicant to 4 co-operate with the inquiry officer in conduct of inquiry by attending the hearings (Annexure A-4).
4. Thereafter the applicant received a letter dated 14.11.2022 (Annexure A-5), wherein it was mentioned that the next date of the inquiry was fixed as 15.11.2022 vide letter dated 07.11.2022 but since the said letter was not delivered to the applicant, therefore the date of inquiry proceedings has been postponed from 15.11.2022 to 29.11.2022. The applicant was directed to join the inquiry proceedings. After receiving the said letter, the applicant submitted an application dated 21.11.2022 stating therein that he has not received copy of the order dated 31.10.2022 passed by the competent authority and requested the respondent No.5 to supply the same so that the applicant may take his legal remedies. The applicant also preferred an appeal on dated 22.11.2022 (Annexure A-6) before the respondent No.2 by narrating the entire facts and conduct of the officials for not supplying the copy of order dated 31.10.2022 and with a further request to change the inquiry officer. It is still pending for final adjudication.
5. Thereafter the respondent No.5 vide his letter dated 24.11.2022 (received by the applicant on 28.11.2022) 5 (Annexure A-7), replied to the application dated 21.11.2022 (Annexure A-6) moved by the applicant wherein it has been stated that although they have made efforts to supply the copy of order dated 31.10.2022 but the same has not been delivered to the applicant and directed the applicant to co-operate with the Supt. of Post offices Bathinda division, Bathinda for delivery of said orders and also with the inquiry officer for conduct of inquiry proceedings. Thereafter the applicant has also received the copy of order dated 31.10.2022 on 28.11.2022.
6. It has been submitted by the applicant that now vide impugned order dated 29.11.2022 (Annexure A-8), the respondent No.7 has started ex-parte proceedings against the applicant by declaring the stage for submission of list of additional documents and defence witness as over and fixed the next date for examination of state witness on 09.12.2022 at Divisional Office, Bathinda which is wrong, illegal, arbitrary and against the rules/law as such liable to be quashed. The applicant also moved an application dated 01.12.2022 (Annexure A-9) stating therein that he was on medical leave and therefore was unable to attend the inquiry proceedings and was also not aware that he can 6 attend the inquiry proceedings through DA alone if his health does not permit. He has requested for time to engage the DA and permit the applicant to appear in the inquiry.
7. In grounds the applicant has submitted that if the ex-parte inquiry proceedings are initiated against him then it will cause irreparable loss and great prejudice to him. The applicant has submitted that as per settled law penalty has to be proportionate to the proven misconduct.
8. The respondents have filed written statement through M.A. No.143/2023 on 09.01.2023, wherein it has been submitted that Sh. Yadwinder Singh (applicant), the then SPM, Boha Sub Post Office under Bathinda Division now Postal Assistant, Dasuya Head Post Office (under transfer) has been proceeded against UR-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide memo no.B-1/710 dated 28.09.2020. On denial of charges by the said applicant vide his representation dated 15.10.2020 (Annexure R-1), the respondent no.6 appointed Sh. Vinod Kumar, Inspector Posts, Malout Division and Sh. Mohit Sharma, Inspector Posts, East Sub Division, Bathinda as Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer (Annexure R-2). The Inquiry Officer fixed preliminary hearing in the case for 28.12.2020 and 7 applicant had given consent of Smt. Parveen Bala, the then ASPOS, West Sub Division, Bathinda as his Defense Assistant (Annexure R-3). In response, the respondent no.6 vide letter no. B-1/710 dated 13.01.2020 addressed to Inquiry Officer did not allow the services of Smt. Parveen Bala as Defense Assistant with request to ask the official to nominate any other official/officer as his defence assistant. The applicant vide his application No. 05/2021 dated 04.02.2021 (Annexure R-4) addressed to respondent no. 6 made complaint against Inquiry Officer as biased with request to change the Inquiry Officer, which was forwarded R.O Chandigarh vide letter no.B-1/710 dated 11.02.2021 (Annexure R-5) with directions to Inquiry Officer to stay the disciplinary proceedings till further orders & reminder issued in this regard on 23.02.2021. The charged official preferred another application No.06/2021 dated 17.03.2021 addressed to respondent no.6 to change the Inquiry Officer (Annexure R-6). In response to respondent no. 6 letter, the competent authority directed respondent no. 6 vide letter No. Vig- R/Misc/2019 dated 05.03.2021 (Annexure R-7) to decide request for change of Inquiry Officer. Accordingly, the respondent no. 6 ordered vide letter No. B-1/710 dated 8 17.03.2021 that Sh. Vinod Kumar, ASPOS, West Sub Division, Bathinda is allowed to resume the inquiry (Annexure R-8). Accordingly, Sh. Vinod Kumar, Inquiry Officer fixed next date of hearing in the case for 05.04.2021.
9. The applicant preferred an appeal vide his application No.7/2021 dated 22.03.2021 addressed to respondent No.4 i.e. Director Postal Services, Punjab West Region, Chandigarh against the Inquiry Officer claiming bias (Annexure R-9). The respondent no. 6 stayed the inquiry proceedings till receipt of orders of the appellate authority. The competent authority vide letter No.Vig-R/Misc/2019 dated 17.05.2021 (Annexure R-10) considered the representation of the charged official and ordered to appoint Sh. Dheeraj Kumar, ASPOS, Moga Sub Division under Faridkot Division as Inquiry Officer. Accordingly, the respondent no. 6 vide memo no. B-1/710 dated 21.05.2021 appointed Sh. Dheeraj Kumar, Asstt. Supdt. of Post Offices, Moga Sub Division, Moga (respondent no. 7) as Inquiry Officer replacing Sh. Vinod Kumar (Annexure R-
11). Sh. Dheeraj Kumar, Inquiry Officer (respondent no. 7) fixed next date of hearing in the case for 16.06.2021. The applicant vide his application no. 12/2021 dated 9 15.06.2021 (Annexure R-12) addressed to respondent no. 6 that he had challenged the said charge sheet before Hon'ble CAT, Chandigarh through OA No. 424/2021 which has been admitted and respondent no. 6 i.e Supdt. of Post Offices, Bathinda Division, Bathinda is one of the respondent in this OA and further intimated that as per Section 19 (4) of CAT Act, 1985 it would not be just & proper to continue the Inquiry till final order is passed in the said O.A. The competent authority vide letter No. Vig- R/Misc/2019 dated 28.01.2022 Annexure R-13) directed respondent no. 6 for seeking legal opinion in the case. As per Legal Opinion, the department proceeded with the inquiry as no specific orders have been issued in the matter (Annexure R-14). Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer (respondent no. 7) fixed next date of hearing in the case for 11.03.2022. But the applicant vide his application dated 10.03.2022 addressed to the Inquiry Officer stated that he was on bed rest as advised his doctor, he was unable to attend the inquiry and also it would not be just & proper to continue the Inquiry till final order passed in the said O.A. (Annexure R-15). So on hearing date fixed on 11.03.2022, both CO and PO remained absent during inquiry. 10
10. The applicant again preferred an application dated 13.03.2022 addressed to respondent no. 6 (Annexure R-
16) against the Inquiry Officer being biased and requested to change the Inquiry Officer.
11. Respondent no.6 transferred the disciplinary case file of the applicant to respondent no.5 vide letter No.B-1/710 dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure R-17) as the official has been transferred UR-37 of Postal Manual Vol. IV from Bathinda Division to Hoshiarpur Division. The representation dated 13.03.2022 of the applicant against the Inquiry Officer as biased was duly considered by the respondent no.5 and directed the Inquiry Officer to continue the enquiry proceedings conveyed to applicant vide letter no.B- 6/Yadwinder Singh dated 25.05.2022 (Annexure R-18). The Inquiry Officer fixed next date of hearing in the case for 31.05.2022 but the applicant again preferred an application dated 28.05.2022 addressed to Inquiry Officer as biased and also took plea that he had filed CAT Case before Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and same was forwarded to the competent authority vide letter no.B-6/Yadwinder Singh dated 22.06.2022. In response the competent authority directed respondent no.5 vide letter dated 01.07.2022, that the 11 case has been lingering on for too long now and the Inquiry Officer should hold day to day hearings and complete the proceedings at the earliest. Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer (respondent no. 7) was directed by respondent no. 5 vide letter dated 06.07.2022 to continue the enquiry proceedings Thereafter, Sh. Lakhwinder Singh, Office Supervisor O/O SPOS, Faridkot Division was appointed as Presenting Officer vice Sh. Mohit Kumar the then Inspector Posts, East Sub Division, Bathinda now Inspector Posts, Nakodar Sub Division under Kapurthala Division vide respondent no. 5 office memo no. B- 6/Yadwinder Singh dated 07.07.2022. The Inquiry Officer (respondent no. 7) fixed next date of hearing in the case for 15.07.2022, the applicant vide his application dated 08.07.2022 addressed to respondent no. 5 to provide the copy of decision regarding his application dated 13.03.2022 and also preferred a representation dated 23.07.2022 against the Inquiry Officer as biased, which was decided and conveyed to the applicant by respondent no. 5 vide letter no. B-6/Yadwinder Singh dated 26.08.2022 (Annexure R-19). Thereafter, the said applicant made his representation dated 29.08.2022 addressed to respondent no. 4 i.e. Director Postal Services, Punjab West Region, 12 Chandigarh against the Inquiry Officer as biased (Annexure R-20). The competent authority rejected the representation of the applicant vide order no.STD-R/44-1/742/2022 dated 31.10.2022 and same was conveyed to the applicant through respondent no.6 i.e. Supdt. of Post Offices, Bathinda Division, Bathinda by respondent no. 5 vide letter no. B-6/Yadwinder Singh dated 03.11.2022 and copy of orders of the competent authority conveyed to the Inquiry Officer & Presenting Officer (Annexure R-21). In response to respondent 5 letter, the respondent no.6 vide letter no B-1/710 dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure R-22) intimated that the orders of the competent authority was forwarded to Inspector Posts, Mansa Sub Division, Mansa for onwards delivery to the said applicant and further Inspector Posts, Mansa Sub Division, Mansa deputed Area Mail Overseer for delivery of orders on 12.11.2022, but the said official refused to accept the same and asked to deliver the same through higher official i.e Inspector Posts, Mansa Sub Division, Mansa. As Inspector Posts, Mansa was busy at Divisional Office on 12.11.2022 due to transfer and placement of MTS Cadre officials, he made another attempt for delivery of orders on 14.11.2022, but the as per telephonic conversation of the Inspector, Mansa Sub 13 Division, Mansa with the said applicant, he was told that the applicant is out of station so again letter was forwarded through registered letter no. RP117139942IN, but the said registered letter returned back with the remarks "Door Lock". Thereafter, the applicant preferred an application dated 21.11.2022 addressed to respondent no 2 through proper channel received in the office of respondent no. 5 ie Sr. Supdt of Post Offices, Hoshiarpur Division, Hoshiarpur (Annexure R-23) that till the copy of orders of the competent authority not delivered to him, inquiry proceedings are to be stayed and also to arrange to supply the copy of orders of the competent authority Accordingly, the respondent no. 5 has supplied the copy of orders of the competent authority to the said applicant vide letter no B- 6/Yadwinder Singh dated 24 11.2022 through registered letter no RP049253844IN dated 25.11.2022 (Annexure R-
24). The respondent no 6 i.e. Supdt of Post Offices, Bathinda Division, Bathinda vide letter no B-1/710 dated 28.11 2022 intimated to the respondent no 5 that copy of orders of the competent authority which was forwarded vide Registered AD letter no RP117139942IN dated 14 11 2022 has been delivered to the applicant on 22.11.2022 (Annexure R- 25). Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer 14 respondent no.7 fixed next date of hearing in the case for 09.12.2022 for examination of state witnesses. With regard to challenge to disciplinary proceedings at interlocutory stage, it is submitted by respondents that intermittent intervention in the disciplinary proceedings is not tenable. Mere issuance of a letter to the delinquent to participate in the domestic enquiry will not give any cause of action to move a court of law. The respondents have relied upon the following judgments:
a. Union of India and others vs. Upendra Singh, 1994 (3) SCC 357.
b. Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha 2012 (11) SCC 565 c. Union of India vs. Kunishetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28 d. State of Orissa vs. Sangram Keshari Mishra 2010 (13) SCC 311 e. Union of India vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana 2006 (12) SCC 28 f. State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179: (1987) 3 ATC 319: AIR 1987 SC 943], g. Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh [(1996) 1 SCC 327).
h. Ulagappa v. Commr. [(2001) 10 SCC 639: AIR 2000 SC 3603 (2)], i. Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440: 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC 1467] and j. Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28 (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 304]).
12. The applicant has filed rejoinder on 24.02.2023 reiterating the stand taken in the original application. 15
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused pleadings available on record.
14. In this context present OA has been filed for quashing Annexure A-9 and not to proceed ex-parte in inquiry by seeking one more opportunity. The inquiry proceedings were stayed by this Tribunal vide order dated 06.12.2022 for imparting natural justice. We find that the inquiry proceedings initiated on 28.09.2020 by the respondents have been dragging, as is evident from the facts discussed supra. However, we are of the view that justice will be done if one last opportunity is provided to the applicant. Hence the impugned order dated 29.11.2022 (Annexure A-
9) is quashed. The respondents are directed to allow the applicant to appear in the inquiry proceedings himself or through a DA.
15. The applicant is also directed to cooperate with the conduct of inquiry proceedings.
16. Accordingly, the O.A. No.1295/2022 is allowed.
17. No order to costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) /kr/