Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ajay Sahu vs Post Up Circle on 31 July, 2024
(Reserved on 29.07.2024)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
This the 31st day of July, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 340 of 2024
Ajay Sahu aged 26 years, S/O Shri Raj Kumar Sahu, Postal
Assistant T.P., Kanpur, Res/O - 156 Gujaini Kanpur 208022.
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri S.M. Abbas Naqvi
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communication,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director, Postal Services, Kanpur Region, Kanpur - 208001.
3. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices Kanpur (City) Division
Kanpur.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Shri S.M. Abbas Naqvi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.
2. Although the instant OA was listed under the head of admission today, the same is heard and decided finally at this stage itself with the consent of both the parties.
3. The OA has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:
"i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the respondents' order dated 27.03.2024 (ANNEXURE A-1) & accept resignation in
1|Page light of the FR-29 (A) (b) Rule - 159 of the Postal Man. Vol.III.
ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing to the respondent No - 3 to issue the acceptance resignation letter address to the applicant with in stipulated period of one week for applicant's bring future.
iii. Issue any order direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
iv. Award the cost of the petition to the applicant."
3. A synopsis of the controversy prevailing in the instant case is that the applicant, who is currently working in the respondents' department, is aggrieved by the order dated 27.03.2024 issued by the respondents thereby refusing to accept his resignation. Alleging that his resignation has been denied on frivolous grounds and the same is liable to be accepted in accordance with the provisions mentioned in departmental manuals, applicant has filed this OA seeking quashing of the order dated 27.03.2024 and a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to accept his resignation in a time bound manner.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the records.
5. Disclosing a brief history of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was recruited in the respondents' department on the post of Postal Assistant cadre in the establishment of the Kanpur City Postal division vide order dated 13.08.2020. First posting order was issued on 28.08.2020 in accordance with which the applicant assumed the charge of PA at PO Chakeri and then at PO Barra. Thereafter, posting order dated 16.06.2023 was issued transferring the applicant from Barra Post Office to Transport Nagar Kanpur and the applicant complied
2|Page accordingly. Thereafter, respondent no. 3 served a memo dated 25.09.2023 to the applicant under Rule 16 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 (Minor Penalty) to which the applicant submitted his defence representation on 09.10.2023. Learned counsel argued that without considering the applicant's representation dated 09.10.2023, the respondent no. 3 awarded the punishment of minor penalty of "withholding of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect".
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that for better career, the applicant had also applied for other services of Central and State Government so much so that he got selected as Inspector CGST for which he was required to resign from the respondents' department. Accordingly, he submitted the unconditional representation dated 03.01.2024 with specific remark that he is ready to deposit the amount under rule, if needed, in case of any loss to the department occurred on his part. However, no action was taken upon the said representation. Learned counsel further argued that the applicant even preferred an appeal dated 11.01.2024 to the Appellate Authority / Respondent no. 2 against punishment order dated 30.11.2023 passed by respondent no. 3. However, in the meantime, the respondent no. 3 straightway denied to accept the unconditional resignation of the applicant vide order dated 25.01.2024 on the arbitrary ground that currency of punishment was still continuing.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the applicant again submitted a representation dated 04.03.2024 wherein special mention of Rule 38 of the Postal Manual Volume - III which deals with the issue of resignation, was made by him. Learned counsel argued that in view of the provisions enshrined in the aforesaid Rule, the respondents are ought to accept the resignation of the applicant however, illegally they have abstained from doing so. In the meantime, the respondent no. 2 / Appellate Authority modified the penalty imposed upon the applicant from "withholding of one increment for one year without cumulative effect" to "reduction of the pay by one stage in 4th pay matrix in level - 4 i.e., from 27900/-
3|Page to 27,100/- in level - 4 from 16.03.2024 to 28.02.2025" and passed the order dated 15.03.2024 in this regard. Ultimately, replying to the letter dated 04.03.2024 of the applicant, respondent no. 3 passed the illegal and arbitrary order dated 27.03.2024 thereby once again refusing to the accept the resignation of the applicant on the ground that "currency of the punishment is still continuing, therefore resignation may not be accepted". Thus, learned counsel argued that the applicant is suffering a lot due to illegal action of the respondents which is violative of Article - 14, Article - 19 and Article - 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore prayer was made to allow the OA thereby directing the respondents to accept the resignation of the applicant, otherwise he shall suffer irreparable career loss and injury.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and by way of his short counter affidavit, he argued that the applicant was held guilty of embezzlement of Rs. 487409/- made at Barra Sub Post Office, under Kanpur City Division from an RD account opened in the name of deceased Late Shri Shiv Nath Singh at Ratan Lal Nagar Sub Post Office. Shri Nirdosh Singh son of Late Shri Shiv Nath Singh vide his complaint dated 05.06.2023 had informed that an irregular withdrawal of Rs. 487409/- was made from the said account which is standing at Ratan Lal Nagar Sub Post Office. Thereafter, the case was enquired and it was found that the applicant Shri Ajay Sahu PA Barra SO had done the authorization of CIF merger process in CIF of said RD account No. 2224422309 through his Finacle User ID 10275412 without scrutinizing relevant documents and KYCs of concerned account holder in unauthorized manner on 27.04.2023. The applicant also updated the PAN number in CIF ID-311209740 of deceased Late Shri Shiv Nath Singh and authorized the Lien/Freeze process made in SB account No. 0100027902192 through his Finacle User ID- 10275412 on 15.06.2023 without obtaining prior sanction of the competent authority concerned in writing. Thus, due to the aforesaid irregularities on the part of the applicant, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Rule - 16 of CCS (CCA) Rule,.
4|Page 1965 vide office memo dated 25.09.2023 to which his reply was received on 09.10.2023. And, after scrutinizing the charge sheet, defence representation and other relevant records of the case, the charges leveled against the applicant were found proved and the applicant was awarded the punishment of "withholding of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect" vide order dated 30.11.2023. However, upon reexamination carried out in view of the applicant's appeal dated 11.01.2024, the said penalty was modified as "reduction of pay by one stage in 4th pay matrix in Level 4 i.e., from 27900/- to 27100/- in level - 4 from 16.03.2024 to 28.02.2025 without cumulative effect". Further, as regards to the prayer of resignation made by the applicant, the same cannot be acceded to in accordance with Postal Manual Vol - III Rule 158 and Rule 159 and due to the fact that currency of punishment is still continuing. Thus, prayer was made on the part of the respondents' counsel to dismiss the original application as being devoid of merits.
9. Rejoinder against the short counter affidavit has been filed by the applicant reiterating the same facts as narrated in the original application.
10. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the documents on record.
11. As the brief facts of the case have already been narrated above, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. As regards to the charges leveled against the applicant and punishment imposed thereof, since the charges were proved in the enquiry and punishment has already been served regarding which no relief whatsoever has been sought by the applicant in this OA, the same is not being touched upon here. The limited issued that needs to be decided is whether the order dated 27.03.2024 by way of which the respondents have refused to accept the resignation request of the applicant is justified or not. It is pertinent to mention that both, the applicant as well as the respondents herein, have relied upon Rule 158 and Rule 159 of the Postal Manual Volume - III to justify their stand. Thus,
5|Page for the sake of clarity, Rule 158 and Rule 159 of the aforesaid Postal Manual Rule Volume - III has been quoted herein below:
"158(1). When a Government servant tenders resignation, the appointing authority in respect of the service or post in question is the authority competent to accept the resignation. The general rule is that resignation from service should be accepted, except in the circumstances indicated below:-
(a) Where the officer concerned is engaged on work of importance and it would take time to make alternative arrangements for filling the post, the resignation should not be accepted straightaway but only when alternative arrangements for filling the post have been made.
(b) When a Government servant who is under suspension, or whose conduct is under investigation, or against whom there are departmental claims, submits his resignation, the competent authority should examine, with reference to the merits of the disciplinary case pending against the Government servant, whether it would be in the public interest to accept the resignation. Normally resignations from such officers should not be accepted. Exceptions to this rule would be where there are no departmental claims and the alleged offence does not involve moral turpitude or the quantum of evidence against the accused officer is not strong enough to justify the assumption that if the departmental proceedings were continued, the officer would be removed or dismissed from service, or where the departmental proceedings are likely to be so protracted that it would be cheaper to the public exchequer to accept the resignation.
(2) The competent authority should decide the date with effect from which the resignation should become effective. In cases covered by (1)(a) above, the date should be that with effect from which alternative arrangements can be made for filling the post. Where an officer is on leave, the competent authority should accept the resignation with effect from the earliest possible date, after taking necessary action under rules, and cancel the unexpired portion of leave, if any.
159. An authority receiving an application from an employee asking for permission to resign should at once adjust all departmental claims outstanding against the applicant, and his resignation should not be accepted until his accounts fully adjusted. Pending acceptance of his resignation the applicant should be employed on such duty as he can perform without any charge of public property, payments to him from a treasury or a post office, if any, being stopped at the same time. On the
6|Page accounts being fully adjusted, the competent authority will intimate the acceptance of the resignation and the date from which the resignation should become effective."
A perusal of the aforesaid rules makes it abundantly clear that the request for resignation tendered by an employee is liable to be accepted, except in some special circumstances. All such circumstances as have been enumerated above do not bear any relevance with the case of the applicant or that they do not impose any rider which may prevent the respondents from accepting applicant's resignation. The applicant is not under suspension nor is any disciplinary case pending against him. Further, no public interest would be affected in case the applicant's resignation is acceded to. There has been no event of moral turpitude and as such no departmental claim subsists. Respondents have not accepted the resignation of the applicant on the ground that the currency of punishment is still continuing. This reason has no bearing to the instant case and the same cannot be held against the applicant's request of resignation as the punishment has already been imposed upon the applicant for the proven misconduct and no loss would accrue to the department in case he is allowed to resign. And especially when the applicant has himself remarked vide his representation dated 03.01.2024 that if needed under rule, he is ready to deposit the amount in case of any loss to the department, no case to refuse the resignation request of the applicant is made out.
Further, Rule 159 of the above Rules specifically states that in the event of any employee seeking permission to resign, the authorities concerned must at once adjust all the outstanding departmental claims and upon the adjustment of same, accept his resignation. Thus, in the instant case, when the punishment has already been imposed thereby awarding the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage that too, without cumulative effect, it would not be in the fitness of things as well as in the interest of justice to refuse the resignation request of the applicant especially when, the applicant is himself ready to deposit the amount in case of any loss to the
7|Page department, as the rule may say, as he specified in his resignation request dated 03.01.2024.
12. Thus, in view of the above deliberations, the instant case of the applicant is liable to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed at the admission stage itself. The impugned order dated 27.03.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to accept the resignation request dated 04.03.2024 of the applicant and to pass appropriate order in that respect within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
13. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ritu Raj)
8|Page