Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Kakali Hait vs D/O India Post on 12 March, 2019
n x~
Pi
KplfezM feyycA. Kfr-tKa^- . '1-
SlF
O. A. No. 35P/000 S 3
IN THE MATTER OF:
of 2017
fc
*
m
i
|
KAKALI HAIT, aged about- 36 years 't
t
:r
l
daughter of Shri Ranjan Kumar Halt, ♦'*
% **»s
*/
residing at Village & Post Office- c..
.1
m-i
Gurgram, Police Station- Bhagwanpur, mm r?
IPs
District- Purba Medinipur, Pin-721633 . m
and working to the post of Gramin Dak ;\ Sevak Mail Deliverer under £.7 Superintendent of Post Offices, Tamluk 52* i *1 . Division, Tamluk; .
...Applicant
f
-Versus- V'
•^
1. UNION OF INDIA, service through nr?' the Secretary, Government of India, m Mr•,:v i Ministry of Communication Information Technology,Department & S m i of Posts, 20, Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi- 110001. m m ir;
m
2. THE CHIEF POST MASTER '■•v .si GENERAL, West Bengal Circle, y-
./t---
•4 .v mj-
c. South Bengal Region, Yogayog Bhawan, Kolkata- 700012.
P'
.. gt-
• ''
•'"'•I;:
... . \ p-Y. ;•
■r •
4
■«
II
-2.-
mm.
t
•ifef. ■
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST msg$
1=
OFFICES, Tamluk Division, Post
Office- Tamluk, District' - Purba Medinipur, Pin-721631;
4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR, Math' Chandipur Sub-
Division, Post Office- Math Chandipur, District- Purba • Medinipur, Pin-721650.
» 5. Mr. SWAPAN ADHIKARY, son of r . ■Late Santosh Adhikary, Ex- Sub-
i: mSM:- ■..
l
f
u
■■■■■
Divisional inspector of Post Offices, jiiife
/
Math ' Chsmdipur Sub-Division
residing at Raja Bazar, Post Office-
■ Midhapore, District- Paschim VU Medinipur, Pin-721101. mm.;
msm-**-
...Respondents.
*s .■ v.;
■■ Vi-
•*: . bs
kh
II
S!
r. m
&
Is
r;
U■£;
r<v>
PL
b-
/
rl-
m
n
giS.. IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL- Name of the Branch- Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta, Place- Calcutta Contempt Petition Civil/Criminal No. 350/00 £> T21 of 2017 (Arising out of 350/595 of 2017) ..f > f, ' .U .
M In the matter of:
- <
V. KAKALI HAIT, aged about- 36 years,
daughter of Shri Ranjan Kumar Hait, •"(v residing at Village & Post Office- Gurgram, Police Station- Bhagwanpur, District- 'vl Purba Medinipur, Pin-721633 and working fi to the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Mail r;,{ ft Deliverer under Superintendent of Post u 8 Offices, Tamluk Division, Tamluk.
...Applicant
^ ■
Ki
ii
Si .' -Versus-
4
*
1. Mr. ANANTA NARAYAN NANDA, the
1
i ^Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of
Communication & Information Technology, Department of Posts, 20, Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi- 110001.
v r V. :frj ■-WyrrWiflfff^ if-.
■.).
.(■ .,-;;; . •
2. Mrs. ARUNDHATI GHOSH, the Chief Post Master General, West Bengal Circle, South fe Bengal Region, Yogayog Bhawan, Kolkata-
700012.
i !
3. Mr. ASHOK SENAPATI, the i Superintendent Of Post Offices, Tamluk i 's Division,. Post Office- Tamluk, District -
Purba Medinipur, Pin-721631.
4. Mr. ABHIJIT BANERJEE, the Sub-
Divisional Inspector, Math Chandipur Sub-
Division, Post Office- Math Chandipur, District- Purba Medinipur, Pin-721650.
5. Mr. SWAP AN ADHIKARY, son of Late Santosh Adhikary, Ex- Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post Offices, Math Chandipur Sub-Division residing at Raja Bazar, Post Office- Midnapore,. District- Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721101.
... CONTEMNORS/RESPONDENTS.
c.
m •Kit CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH Date of Order: - >5 * 2^ * Coram: Hon'ble Mr. A.K Patnaik, Judicial Member h Hon'bie Dr. N.Chatterjee, Administrative Member O.A./350/595/2017 KakaliHait -vs- UOJ & Ors.
C.P.C./350/67/2017 Kakali Halt Vs. Ananta Narayan Nanda & Ors.
For the Applicant(s): Mr. P.C.Das, Counsel Ms. T.Mai^Cb^ftsef>\ For the Respondent(s): Mr. -B .P^Marin^'pminseP ^ • r- \ I C Sfej 3 A.K Patnaik. Member (Jk i1 q a? !\ £y n As the contemp't p^tSmn (C.P.0^73^)67/2017) is the offshoot of the Original Application (O.A./350/59.5,/'20,17j,-.upon^hearing the learned counsel this common judgment is passed.
2. Some of the facts which are absolutely necessary for deciding the present dispute are that Respondents issued notification dated 10.9.2009 inviting application for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer (GDS MD for short) of Khagda-
Birgram BO in account with Narghat SO. Upon consideration of the applications . . submitted by different candidates pursuant to the said notification dated 10.9.2009, applicant got selected vide letter dated 25.1.2010 and took the charge of the post on 4.2.2010. Thereafter, by an order dated 4.12.2012, on the instruction of Respondent No:2,'Respondent No.3, without giving any opportunity of being heard, terminated
-c-
■< the service of the applicant which was challenged by the Applicant in OA No. 1166 of 2012. The OA was disposed of on 30.9.2016 an exeeFpt fVem it feads as unatwv "24. In view of the above mentionedfacts and circumstances we left with no option except to set-a-side the order of termination of engagement dated 04.12.2012. However, it will be open to the respondents that if they want to proceed to disengage the applicants they could do so by adopting the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid Rules of2011.
25. We also make it clear while delivering the judgment we simply discussed, the legal aspect of the matter and have not make any comment on the merit of the case. The Respondent Authorities would be free to take any decision without being influenced by this order so far as the merit of this case is concerned. "
In compliance of the order, Respondent No.3, reserving the right to take decision in accordance with Rule 4(3) of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011, reinstated the applicant to the post,Nn'question, vide^order dated 1.12.2016. Thereafter . x notice dated 17.3.2017 u/r 4(3^ oflGDSMCp^duct ^Engagement) Rule, 2011 was ■ ?
(glllp.
•C' ^ issued calling upon the applicant taSMai^Ss^tP wft§ her engagement shall not be \° cancelled for the irregularity In the^electidft pi^ggejssk ESy making representation dated \V V7'-/ 21.3.2017, applicant has prayed-fd^supply ^her some documents mentioned in the representation as also thirty days time for personal hearing after perusal of the records/documents. No document was supplied and, on the other hand, she was asked to appear for personal hearing on 30.3.2017 by Respondent No.3. Applicant submitted another representation dated 29.3.2017 reiterating her grievance made in previous representation. Without supplying the documents/hearing the applicant, Respondent No,3 terminated the service of the applicant vide order dated 10.4.2017. Hence by filing the ^present OA, the applicant has challenged the said order in the present OA, praying inter alia as under:
"(a) To quash and/or set aside the impugned office order No. TMKJCAT/OA No. 1166/2010 dated 17li March, 2017 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tamluk Division by which your -7- applicant was forced to appear for personal hearing before him , sS without supplying the copies of the. documents as asked for by the / applicant tn r+spoet rtf' M* impugned office letter dated 17.03.2017 being Annexure A-6 of mis original application.
(b) To quash and/or set aside the impugned office letter dated 28.03.2017 by which the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tamluk Division, Tamluk by which your applicant was forced to appear for personal hearing without supplying with the relevant documents which she has askedfor in her representation dated 21.03.2017 and tried to pass final order without giving a reasonable opportunity to the present applicant being Annexure A-8 of this original application.
(c) To pass an appropriate order directing the respondent authorities not to pass any final order on the basis of the impugned office orders dated 17,h March, 2017 and 28th March, 2017 until and unless the documents which the applicant has askedfor are supplied to the applicant for making proper defence in the persona hearing before the SuperintendenffoCPost Offices, Tamluk Division, Tamluk.
<3 \ A
(d) To pass {bn appiff^^e^onder^direding upon the respondent authority to^allow-tl^^^^want tocresume duty in the respective post till.the faposalyffij&fyfanal application. "
3. The OA was considering the submissions of both sides, this Bench while admi'tting-the'OA as an interim measure directed the Respondents to maintain status quo as on date regarding continuance of the applicant until further orders.
4. Alleging non compliance of the said order, the Applicant has filed the present CP.
'"5v:: Respondents have filed their counter reiterating the reason of termination .. .as given in the order of termination dated 10.4.2017. It has been stated that despite' opportunity the applicant did not prefer to be present and put forth her grievance, if any, on the date and time fixed one after the other. Hence, there being no other way, her services were terminated, which needs no interference.
Y4!L ' Yir
-8
6. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the records. ,
7. We find from the recot'd that on reoeipt sficomoiaint from one Kalikinkar Mondal the Respondent No.3, who is the higher authority, reviewed the entire selection and on review as it was found that though the application of said Kalikinkar Mondal reached within the stipulated time fixed in the notification inviting application, her application was not taken into consideration and had her application been taken into consideration, she having secured more marks would have been selected.
8. In course of hearing leaned counsel for the applicant has produced the reply filed by the Respondents in OA No. 2005 of 2010 filed by said Kalikinkar Mondal in which the Respondents have candidly admitted that as the present applicant (Smt. Kakali Hait) was found^o"ha^^highest marks she was selected and / A zS \ appointed to the post in qu^tior^^&lief^egnedccd.unsel for the applicant has ■ i " n ® I- U ■ u produced a copy of the OM dated 2"i^Februaiy,_2017"to state that m the meantime Mi/ said Kalikinkar Mondal has been^selected^and''appointed as Assistant Teacher of ABASBERIA BD Pry/Jr.Basic Sclio'oHunder'Bhagwanpur-1 Circle and, therefore order of termination is liable to be set aside.
According to the learned counsel for the applicant, this Bench while quashing the order of termination dated 4.12.2012 granted liberty to the respondents that if they want to proceed to disengage they could do so by adopting the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid rules of 2011. Thus, the Respondent No.3 would not have, terminated the service of the applicant by adopting the short-circuit method r. • .
without following due process of Rule and law in its entirety. Termination being one of the major punishments provided under the Rules, they should have strictly followed the rules. Further, providing documents, which are relevant to the issue, also i A comes within the purview of principles of natural justice. When the applicant had sought the documents there was no reason to deny the same, 'fhus, according to the applicant, the order of termination being against the order of this Bench, principles of natural justice and rules, the same is liable to be quashed and the Respondents are liable to be proceeded with under the contempt of court act for their intentional and ; i deliberate violation of the order.
9. An Extra Departmental Agent is not a casual worker but he holds a post under administrative control of State. Employment of an Extra Departmental Agent is jn a post which exists apart from the person who happens to fill it at any particular time. Though, such a post is outside the regular civil services, but there is no doubt that it is a post under the State. Relying *omea'rlier judgment in State of Assam vs. Kanak Chandra Dutta reported it has been held that tests of a "civil post" laid down therein arefeleaf-lpsaTisfied incthe case of Extra Departmental ■ jS g) ■ Agents. It was further heldl&?at Extra Departmental^Agents work under the direct \ / control and supervision of authqritfes^ho-obyipusly have right to control the manner in which they must carry out their duties.-Thus, there is no doubt that relationship between postal authorities and Extra Departmental Agents is one of master and servant. In State of Assam vs Kanak Chandra Dutta, in AER 1967 SC 884, it was already held that a person holding a "civil post", in the matter of termination would be entitled to protection under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and this dictum has been relied and followed in Superintendent of Post Offices v. P.K. Rajamma reported in AIR 1977 SC 1677.
10. We find that termination of service of the applicant was not for any fault of her inasmuch as any misconduct etc. but for the reason of alleged irregularity committed by Respondent No.4 while selecting the candidates. However, this Bench while ¥ ;■■■
--fo -
yr disposing of the earlier O.A. No. 1166/2012 has no doubt granted liberty to the Respondents to proceed to disengage the applicant but they were instruetea to m bt* > by adopting the procedure prescribed under Rules of 2011. Subsequently, the Respondents while issuing a detailed order dated 10.04.2017 have already discussed l the relevancy/non-relevancy of the documents sought for by the applicant as well as all the other aspects. We do not find anything from the pleadings of the applicant to show that how the documents, sought for by her, are relevant to decide her case. In our considered view, the Respondents, while complying with the Rules of 2011, have given reasonable opportunity to the applicant to put forth her grievance, which the /applicant failed to grab.
11. In view of the discussions made* 'anov^v we find no merit in this O.A. ^ -A,/ rs /x / V* Consequently, we also do nptjMke^^^^^^vf^i thg^P and the CP is accordingly \ r< dropped. ' . | S 2) ■ ( ' iO \ 12, Thus, both the 6a and$P are, acep^fegl^/disposed of. No costs.
!• \
\
w.
: (Dr. N.Chatt^rjee) (A.K.Patnaik)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
RK/PS
i
\
A-
r.
1 .
n