Madras High Court
S.Prabakaran vs The Registrar on 2 January, 2014
Author: N.Paul Vasanthakumar
Bench: N.Paul Vasanthakumar, P.Devadass
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.01.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS
W.P.No.34588 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
S.Prabakaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench, Madras.
2.The Post Master General,
Central Region,
Office of the Post Master General,
Department of Posts,
Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
3.Director of Postal Services,
Central Region,
Office of the Post Master General,
Department of Posts,
Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
4.Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Office of the Senior Superintendent
of Post Offices,
Virudhachalam-606 001. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records culminating in order dated 18.11.2013 passed in Original Application No.295 of 2011 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai the 1st respondent herein whereby the order of removal from service dated 31.8.2009 in f.1/6/06-07 dated at Virudhachalam-606 001 on the file of 4th respondent herein and consequential order of rejection of appeal vide Memo No.STC/3/7/2010 dated at Tiruchirappalli 620 001 the 26.8.2010 on the 2nd respondent herein are confirmed and quash the same and direct the respondent herein to reinstate the petitioner as Branch Post Master with all attendant benefits and seniority.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Santhanaraman
--------
O R D E R
(Order the Court was made by N.PAUL VASANTHKUMAR,J) This writ petition is filed to quash the order made in Original Application No.295 of 2011 dt. 31.8.2009 wherein the petitioner challenged the order of removal from service which was passed on the ground that petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,17,474.85, confirmed by the Appellate Authority. For the Charge Memo issued, the petitioner has admitted the misappropriation and pleaded for lenience. Considering the gravity of charge, the Postal Department has chosen to pass an order of removal from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner has preferred O.A.No.295 of 2011. Tribunal has upheld the order of Postal Department by applying the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1989) 2 SCC 177 (Union of India v. Parma Nanda) and (1995) 6 SCC 749 (B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others). The allegations levelled and the facts are bring out as follows:-
"Article I The said Shri S.Prabakaran, while working as GDS BPM, Vilandai BO a/w Thapovanam SO, had received Rs.500/- each, towards monthly deposits for the months from May 2003 to September 2006, tendered by Smt. V.Indirani, depositor of RD A/C No.692346 on various dates to the tune of Rs.20,500/- + Rs.80/- (Default fee). The said Shri. S.Prabakaran had made entries in the pass book of the said RD A/C impressed date stamp in the pass book and returned the pass book to the depositor on each occasion. But, the said Shri. S.Prabakaran had not brought the total deposit amount of Rs.20,500 + Rs.80 (Default fee) into Post Office accounts. Instead, he had utilised the amount for his personal expenses.
Thus, it is imputed that the said Shri. S.Prabakaran, by not bringing into Post Office accounts the amount of RD deposits collected by him, had contravened the provisions of Rule 131 and 174(2) of Rules for Branch Offices (Sixth edition second reprint) and thereby, he had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of him under the provisions of Rule 21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and employment) Rules, 2001.
Article II The said Shri. S.Prabakaran, while working as GDS BPM, Vilandai BO a/w Thapovanam SO had received Rs.600/- each, towards monthly deposits for the months from August 2005 to September 2006, tendered by Shri. D.Janarthanan, depositor of RD A/C No.692645 on various dates to the tune of Rs.8,400/-. The said Shri. S.Prabakaran had made entries in the pass book of the said RD A/C, impressed date stamp in the pass book and returned the pass book to the depositor on each occasion. But, the said Shri. S.Prabakaran had not brought the total deposit amount of Rs.8,400/- into Post Office accounts. Instead, he had utilised the amount for his personal expenses.
Thus, it is imputed that the said Shri. S.Prabakaran, by not bringing into Post Office accounts the amount of RD deposits collected by him, had contravened the provisions of Rule 131 and 174(2) of Rules for Branch Offices (Sixth edition second reprint) and thereby, he had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of him under the provisions of Rule 21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and employment) Rules, 2001.
Article III The said Shri. S.Prabakaran, while working as GDS BPM, Vilandai BO a/w Thapovanam SO had received Rs.500/- each, towards monthly deposits for the months from December 2005 to September 2006, tendered by Shri. V.Narayanan, depositor of RD A/C No.692779 on various dates to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. The said Shri. S.Prabakaran had made entries in the pass book of the said RD A/C, impressed date stamp in the pass book and returned the pass book to the depositor on each occasion. But, the said Shri. S.Prabakaran had not brought the total deposit amount of Rs.5,000/- into Post Office accounts. Instead, he had utilised the amount for his personal expenses.
Thus, it is imputed that the said Shri. S.Prabakaran, by not bringing into Post Office accounts the amount of RD deposits collected by him, had contravened the provisions of Rule 131 and 174(2) of Rules for Branch Offices (Sixth edition second reprint) and thereby, he had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of him under the provisions of Rule 21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and employment) Rules, 2001."
Enquiry was conducted and the petitioner admitted the charges and stated that subsequently, he remitted the entire amount and pleaded for lenient punishment.
2. The only ground raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that similarly placed persons were let off with lenient punishment and the petitioner has been discriminated by imposing major punishment.
3. We have perused one order (which is enclosed in the typed set) dated 09.1.2009 in Memo No.F1/4/06-07 by the Senior Superintendent of Posts, Vriddhachalam Division wherein the amount involved was very meagre and having regard to the facts of the said case and considering the past conduct of that person, the Department let off the person with an order of "Censure". Here, in this case, the amount involved was Rs.2,17,474.85 and the petitioner also admitted the misappropriation. The action of the petitioner has caused loss of face and credibility of the Postal Department, from among the public, which is more required to be maintained by the Postal Department of Government of India. The Department having lost confidence on the petitioner has chosen to remove the petitioner from service and the Appellate Authority confirmed the said order, which was also upheld by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
4. It is a well settled proposition of law that if the Department had lost confidence on its employee, Courts are not expected to interfere with the punishment. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2007 AIR SCW 4136 : JT 2007 (8) SC 588 (Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank & Another). In paragraph 20 it is held thus, "..............................
Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity. A necessary implication which must be engrafted on the contract of service is that the servant must undertake to serve his master with good faith and fidelity. In a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed. Granting such an employee the relief of reinstatement would be "an act of misplaced sympathy which can find no foundation in law or in equity." (Vide Air India Corporation, Bombay vs. V.A.Ravellow, AIR 1972 SC 1343; The Binny Ltd. vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1973 SC 1403; Kamal Kishore Lakshman vs. Management of M/s.Pan American World Airways Inc & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 229; Francis Kalein & Co. Pvt. Ltd., vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1971 SC 2414; Regional Manager, Rajasthan SRTC Vs. Sohan Lal, (2004) 8 SCC 218; and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. M.Chandrashekhar Reddy & Ors., 2005 AIR SCW 1232).
In Kanhaiyalal Agrawal & Ors. Vs. Factory Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd. (2001) 9 SCC 609, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bona fide loss of confidence in the employee, observing that, (i) the workman is holding the position of trust and confidence; (ii) by abusing such position, he commits act which results in forfeiting the same; and (iii) to continue him in service/establishment would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the employer, or would be detrimental to the discipline or security of the establishment. Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management, regarding trustworthiness or reliability of the employee, must be alleged and proved." "
The same is the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1861 of 2009, Judgment dated 21.6.2010. The said writ appeal was preferred against the order of one of us (N.Paul Vasanthakumar, J.) made in W.P.No.5387 of 2001 dated 27.8.2009. Following the said judgment, the First Bench of this Court wherein one of us (N.Paul Vasanthakumar, J.) was a party, in W.A.No.2096 of 2012 dated 12.3.2013 upheld the order of punishment imposed by the Indian Bank.
5. In such circumstance, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2013 is also dismissed.
(N.P.V.,J) (P.D.S.,J)
02.01.2014
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
bbr
To
1.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench, Madras.
2.The Post Master General,
Central Region,
Office of the Post Master General,
Department of Posts,
Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
3.Director of Postal Services,
Central Region,
Office of the Post Master General,
Department of Posts,
Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
4.Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Office of the Senior Superintendent
of Post Offices,
Virudhachalam-606 001.
N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR,J
AND
P.DEVADASS,J
bbr
W.P.No..34588 of 2013
02.01.2014