Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
M Mohankumar vs M/O Communications on 16 June, 2025
1 OA No.310/01784/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01784/2016
Dated this the 16th day of June, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
Shri M. Mohankumar
Retired Postal Assistant
S/o P. Munusamy,
19/7, Store street.
Kaspa "B", Ambur. .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s. V. Raghavachari
Vs.
1. Union of India rep by its
rep by its Director,
Ministry of Communications and
Information Technology
Department of Post
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi.
2. Union Public Service Commission
Rep. by its Deputy Secretary,
Sangh Lok Seva Ayog,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
3.The Post Master General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Chennai. .. Respondents
By Advocate Ms. Shakila Anand for R.1 & 3
Dr. M. Devendran for R.2
2 OA No.310/01784/2016
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) Aggrieved by the penalty the order, dated 27.03.2015 whereby 50% cut in his monthly pension the applicant has filed the OA for setting aside the said order as illegal, unjust and to pass appropriate order as deemed fit by the Tribunal.
2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
The applicant respectfully submits that he joined the Postal Department in 1975 as an Extra Departmental Agent. He was promoted to the post of Group "D" with effect from 22.01.1978 and subsequently served in the Army Postal Service for nearly six years. On 19.05.1999, he was further promoted and placed in a higher pay scale under the T.B.O.P. (Time-
Bound One Promotion) Scheme. Over the course of his service, the applicant held various positions within the Postal Department. In May 2010, he was posted as a T.B.O.P. Postal Assistant at the Perambur Sub Post Office. From the date of his appointment, the applicant discharged his duties with utmost diligence and integrity. Notably, no complaints were ever filed against him regarding his conduct or performance during his tenure. The applicant was scheduled to retire on 31.08.2011, having rendered nearly 35 years of service. However, just days before his retirement, a Charge Memorandum was issued on 26.08.2011 under Rule 3 OA No.310/01784/2016 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The applicant's grievance is that 50% of his monthly pension has been withheld despite there being no proven misconduct on his part. Upon receipt of the Charge Memorandum, the applicant submitted a reply and requested that the Enquiry Officer provide an opportunity to present his case. However, the Enquiry Officer denied this request and conducted the proceedings in a manner inconsistent with established disciplinary procedures. Despite raising objections, the Enquiry Officer was not replaced. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, deducting 50% of his pension, the applicant has filed this Original Application seeking appropriate redressal.
3. The primary contention of the applicant is that he married Mrs. M. Kasturi in the year 1991. However, due to health issues, their marital relationship was disrupted. Upon discovering her inability to conceive, Mrs. M. Kasturi, the applicant's first wife, voluntarily gave her full consent for the applicant's remarriage. To formalize this understanding, a dissolution deed was executed by her on 13.09.1996, wherein she categorically stated that she would not initiate any civil or criminal proceedings against the applicant.
4 OA No.310/01784/2016
4. The applicant drew our attention to the operative portion of the dissolution deed, which reads as follows:
"Even after the lapse of more than four years since our marriage in 1991, we have no children. Due to my health condition, we were unable to have any heirs. For the past one year, I have been residing in my mother's house so that you may seek an heir and proceed with remarriage. Hence, I declare that I wholeheartedly consent to your remarriage and I will not resort to any civil or criminal litigation."
5. It is further submitted that the applicant remarried Mrs. M. Mary Jecindha on 19.05.1999, only after obtaining explicit consent from his first wife. From this second marriage, the applicant has three children one daughter and two sons. Despite this background, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant on the ground that he remarried Mrs. M. Mary Jecindha without obtaining a formal divorce from his first wife. It is crucial to note that the applicant acted with the first wife's consent, and a dissolution deed was duly executed by Mrs. M. Kasturi.
6. It was further submitted that the applicant was unexpectedly served with a charge memorandum on 26.08.2011,just four days prior to his retirement on 31.08.2011, after nearly 35 years of service. The charge memo was issued under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services 5 OA No.310/01784/2016 (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
7. The respondents, however, failed to consider that Mrs. M. Kasturi, the applicant's first wife, had executed a dissolution deed on 13.09.1996, consenting to the applicant's remarriage. It was only after this that he married Mrs. M. Mary Jecindha. The applicant also filed a petition to produce the dissolution deed as an additional document during the disciplinary proceedings, but this request was deliberately rejected by the Enquiry Officer. Furthermore, no opportunity was provided to the applicant to properly defend himself, which constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice.
8. The applicant's grievance centers on the deduction of 50% of his monthly pension, despite no proven misconduct on his part. Upon receiving the charge memo, he submitted a detailed reply and requested a fair hearing. However, the Enquiry Officer neither permitted him to present his case nor recused himself despite objections. The procedure followed was irregular and contrary to standard disciplinary practices. It was therefore contended that the penalty of reducing 50% of the 6 OA No.310/01784/2016 applicant's pension is not only illegal and unjustified but also grossly disproportionate to the charge alleged. Accordingly, the applicant seeks relief through the present Original Application.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Smt. M. Kasthuri, the applicant's first wife, had filed a petition under HMOP No. 27/2005 before the Subordinate Court, Gudiyattam. The Hon'ble Court, by its order dated 23.01.2007, dissolved the marriage between the applicant and Smt. Kasthuri on the grounds of cruelty, desertion, and bigamy, with costs. The applicant has claimed that he remarried Mrs. M. Mary Jecindha on 19.05.1999 only after obtaining the consent of his first wife and that a dissolution deed was executed by her. However, during the Rule 14 inquiry held on 23.07.2012, Smt. M. Kasthuri, in her deposition dated the same day, categorically denied having given any such consent or signing any dissolution deed related to the marriage.
10. It was further submitted that the applicant entered into a second marriage with Mrs. M. Mary Jecindha while his first wife, Smt. M. Kasthuri, was still alive, and without obtaining proper permission or 7 OA No.310/01784/2016 securing a formal divorce. The documents relating to his second marriage were submitted only in 2011, at the time of submitting his pension papers to the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (HQ), Tirupattur Division, in connection with his retirement. Consequently, the applicant was rightly proceeded against under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, for failing to obtain prior permission for remarriage during the subsistence of his first marriage.
11. It was also submitted that the Inquiry Officer provided ample opportunity to the applicant to defend himself, including the liberty to engage a defence assistant and to submit additional documents and witness lists. However, the applicant failed to make use of these opportunities, and nothing prevented him from doing so. Therefore, there were no procedural lapses on the part of the Inquiry Officer in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Further, the penalty of withholding 50% of the applicant's monthly pension was imposed by the President of India only after a thorough consideration of the facts, circumstances, documentary records, the advice of the UPSC, and the applicant's representation. Accordingly, the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the Original Application. 8 OA No.310/01784/2016
12. We have considered the arguments put forward by the learned counsel on both the sides, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record. We have also gone through the case laws relied upon by the respective counsel.
13. It is seen that Disciplinary Authority vide Charge Memo, dated 26.0- 8.2011 initiated disciplinary proceedings against the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which are deemed to have continued under Rule 9 of he CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 since the applicant had retired from on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.08.2011. The following Article of charge has been framed against the charged officer:
"ARTICLE-I Shri M. Mohankumar, PA, Pernambut SO is due to retire on Superannuation on the A/N of 31.08.11. While collecting the pension papers through the ASPOS (HQrs), the official has submitted a Xerox copy of Decree and Judgment in HMOP No. 27/2005 on 27.07.11 given by the Subordinate Judge, Gudiyattam on 23.01.2007 granting divorce between the official and Smt. M. Kasthuri, first wife of the official and a marriage Invitation in connection with his second marriage held with Smt. M. Mary Jecindha on 19.05.1999.
By the aforesaid act, the applicant has failed to obtain the permission to remarry while first wife is living as enjoined in Government of India's decision 1 below Rule 21 of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. Hence it is imputed that, Sri. M. Mohankumar, PA, Pernambur SO 9 OA No.310/01784/2016 has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant and thus violated the Rule 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964."
14. The Commission forwarded a copy of the Article of Charge, along with a list of documents and witnesses intended to support the charge. The applicant denied the allegations, and consequently, an oral inquiry was ordered. An Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed to conduct the proceedings. Upon completion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 08.03.2014, wherein it was concluded that the charge against the applicant was proved beyond doubt. The Disciplinary Authority tentatively accepted the Inquiry Officer's report and forwarded a copy to the applicant, inviting his submissions. The advice of the Commission was also sought in the matter.
15. The Commission noted that, as per the marriage invitation submitted by the applicant on 27.07.2011 at the time of his retirement, the marriage between the applicant and Ms. M. Mary Jacindha took place at 11:00 AM on 19th May 1999. It was also observed that, according to the copy of the Order and Judgment in HMOP No. 27/2005, filed on 28.07.2005 under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act by Smt. M. Kasthuri, the applicant's first wife, the marriage was dissolved on grounds of cruelty, desertion, and bigamy. Both these documents were submitted by the 10 OA No.310/01784/2016 applicant to the Department through his letter dated 27.07.2011, along with his pension papers. During her deposition, Smt. M. Kasthuri stated that the applicant had not obtained her consent prior to entering into the second marriage with Ms. Mary Jacindha. According to Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, a Government servant who has a living spouse is prohibited from entering into or contracting a second marriage, unless it is permissible under the personal law applicable to the Government servant and the other party. Therefore, the applicant's second marriage on 19.05.1999 conducted before the legal dissolution of his first marriage constitutes a violation of Rule 21(2) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The applicant's claim that he entered into the second marriage with the consent of his first wife is not supported by any documentary evidence. Similarly, his contention that he was unaware of the departmental rules is not considered tenable.
16. Undoubtedly, the applicant's act of entering into a second marriage without obtaining prior permission from the Government constitutes misconduct. However, the question that arises whether this kind of misconduct is of such a grave nature so as to warrant 50% of monthly pension be withheld on a permanent basis.
11 OA No.310/01784/2016
17. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura, Bench of Agartala in the case of Ghulam Nabi Shergujri Vs The United of India, in WP(C) 588 of 2015, vide its judgment, dated 04.4.2016 took the following view:
7. Having held so, we are clearly of the view that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct committed by him.
We must keep in mind the fact that the petitioner had already rendered 18 years of service before he contracted into the second marriage. He was terminated after he had completed almost 20 years of service. In the reply, there is no allegation that there was any other complaint against the petitioner. No doubt, his act of marrying a second time without seeking permission of the Government is misconduct but can it be said that this misconduct is so severe that he should be dismissed from service which would mean that he would virtually be entitled to no pensionary or other benefits.
8. .......................... whatever be the case, the petitioner is a person who served the BSF for about 20 years and the allegation against him is that he misconducted himself by contracting a second marriage while his first spouse was living. This is not a criminal offence of bigamy because the personal law permits such conduct. Misconduct is the technical misconduct in not seeking permission of the authorities concerned. We are, therefore, of the opinion that though the misconduct of the petitioner is serious enough to warrant his non- continuation in service but it is not so serious as to warrant forfeiture of all his service benefits.
9. It is true that normally the writ Court does not interfere in matters of punishment and does not impose a punishment by itself but we are clearly of the view that this is one of those glaring cases where the punishment is totally disproportionate to the misconduct.
12 OA No.310/01784/2016
10. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the interest of justice will be served if punishment of compulsory retirement is imposed upon the petitioner instead of punishment of dismissal from service. The impugned orders are modified accordingly. The petitioner shall be deemed to have been compulsorily retired from the date of his dismissal from service.
11. All the retiral and other pensionary benefits of the petitioner shall be released to him within 6(six) months from today, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the entire amounts w.e.f. 01.5.2016.
12. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs."
18. We now would like to consider the issue, whether the punishment imposed by the President, based on the recommendation of the UPSC, is proportionate to the misconduct or grossly excessive. A similar question, arising from an identical set of facts, was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.V. Kapoor v. Union of India & Others (Civil Appeal No. 5025 of 1985), decided on 07.08.1990 and reported in (1990) 4 SCC
314. The Apex Court held that "the employee's right to pension is a statutory right. Therefore, deprivation of such right must be in accordance with law. The measure of deprivation must be correlative to or commensurate with the gravity or the grave misconduct or irregularity as it offends the right to assistance at the evening of his life as assured under Article 41 of the Constitution." It was further held in para 10 as follows: 13 OA No.310/01784/2016
"10. Rule 9 of the rules empowers the President only to with- hold or withdraw pension permanently or for a specified period in whole or in part or to order recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the State in whole or in part subject to minimum. The employee's right to pension is a statutory fight. The measure of deprivation therefore, must be correlative to or commensurate with the gravity of the grave misconduct or irregularity as it offends the right to as assistance at the evening of his life as assured underArt.41 of the Constitution. The impugned 'order discloses that the President withheld on permanent basis the payment of gratuity in addition to pension. The fight to gratuity is also a statutory right. The appellant was not charged with nor was given an opportunity that his gratuity would be withheld as a measure of punishment. No provision of law has been brought to our notice under which, the President is empowered to withhold gratuity as well, after his retirement as a measure of punishment. Therefore, the order to withhold the gratuity as a measure of penalty is obviously illegal and is devoid of jurisdiction."
19. Applying the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgment, and considering that the applicant's misconduct, entering into a second marriage while the first spouse was still alive did not result in any pecuniary loss to the Department, we observe that although the misconduct constitutes a violation of conduct rules due to the failure to obtain prior permission, it is primarily of a technical nature. In our considered view, while the applicant's actions are serious, they are not of such gravity as to justify a permanent withholding of 50% of his monthly pension. Accordingly, we direct the second respondent, the UPSC, to revise the penalty and limit the pension cut to 20%. The said exercise shall be 14 OA No.310/01784/2016 completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.
20. The OA is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
16 .06.2025
mas