Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Sunish Chandran vs Union Of India Represented By on 9 November, 2016
Author: P.Gopinath
Bench: P.Gopinath
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 180/1000 of 2014
Wednesday this the 9th day of November, 2016.
CORAM
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Balakrishnan, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mrs. P.Gopinath, Administrative Member
Sunish Chandran, S/o Ramachandran,
aged 31 years, Postman, Kottayam HPO
(Postal Assistant Trainee), Department of Posts,
1, residing at Kanjirappara, Kadaplamattom,
Kottayam-686571.
. . . Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. V. Sajithkumar)
Versus
1 Union of India represented by
Secretary to Government,
Department of Posts,
Government of India, New Delhi-110001.
2 The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum-695001.
3 The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kottayam Division, Kottayam-686001.
4 The Senior Post Master, Kottayam Head
Post Office, Kottayam-686001.
. . . Respondents
(By Advocates : Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimootil, Sr.PCGC)
This application having been finally heard on 3.11.2016, the Tribunal
on 09.11.2016 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Justice N.K. Balakrishnan, Judicial Member The applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking a direction to be issued to the respondents to consider his claim for appointment as Postal Assistant along with other selected candidates and to grant him appointment with effect from the date of appointment of other candidates shown in Annexure A1 with all consequential benefits.
2. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the orders passed by the CPMG Thiruvananthapuram, six candidates including the applicant who figures as the 4th person were declared as qualified candidates in the LGO examination held on 15.9.2013 and they were directed to undergo induction training for the Postal Assistants at PTC Mysore from 8.9.2014. It is also the admitted case that the applicant and six others mentioned therein successfully underwent the training. As per Annexure A1 order dated 31.10.2014 except the applicant all the other six candidates were granted promotion and appointment as LR Postal Assistants in the scale of pay of Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/-. The applicant was denied appointment on the ground that there was a criminal case pending against him before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class.
3. Subsequently that criminal case ended in acquittal. The applicant contends that no evidence whatsoever was adduced by the prosecution in support of the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet. A copy of the judgment in STC 596/2013 dated 21.5.2015 has been produced by the applicant which shows that the applicant and three other persons were charged for offence punishable under Sec.294(b) read with Sec.34 of IPC. The allegation was that the applicant and others abused the complainant therein using obscene words in public place. No evidence was given in support thereof. The de-facto complainant himself did not give evidence in support of the prosecution and hence all the accused therein were acquitted. Though the word 'honourable acquittal' is not stated therein it can be seen that no evidence was adduced and so the applicant was entitled to get appointment with affect from the date his immediate junior was appointed as per Annexure A1 order.
4. It is pointed out by the applicant that Sec. 294(b) is one of the provisions which is usually misused. Annexure R1 the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India dated 14.9.1992 itself will make it clear that there may be cases where the proceedings, whether disciplinary or criminal, are delayed at the instance of the employee or the clearance of the disciplinary proceedings or acquittal in the criminal proceedings is with benefit of doubt or on account of non-availability of evidence due to the acts attributable to the employee etc. Those are only some of the circumstances where such denial can be justified, it is stated so. The applicant's counsel would submit that it is not a case where the non- availability of evidence was due to any act attributable to the applicant. As stated earlier it is easy to have a criminal case instituted by levelling a charge under Sec. 294 (b) IPC. There is also nothing to show that any such incident had taken place. The de-facto complainant himself did not support the prosecution. It was not due to any act attributable to the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to get his appointment with effect from the date on which the other candidates were given appointment as per Annexure A1. It is ordered accordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances we are also of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to get the arrears of salary and allowances with effect from the date when his immediate junior was given appointment. OA is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Mrs. P. Gopinath) (N. K. Balakrishnan) Administrative Member Judicial Member kspps