Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Mohammad Hussain vs Post Hp Circle on 26 May, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No. 63/770/2023
Reserved on: 28.03.2025
Pronounced on: 26.05.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
Mohammad Hussain son of late Shri Gulam Rassul, aged about 49
years, Resident of Village Salyana, Post Office Chalnair, Tehsil Kotkhai,
District Shimla, presently posted at O/o Senior Superintendent of Post
Offices Shimla Division Shimla, HP as Office Assistant, (Group C).
...Applicant
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Sr. Adv along with Ms. Samriti)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Communication, Department of Post, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Himachal Pradesh Circle, SDA Complex,
Kasumpti, Shimla-9.
3. Sh. Vikas Negi, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Shimla Division,
Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
4. Sh. Joginder Singh Chaudhary, Sr Post Master, Shimla, GPO,
Shimla-171001, H.P.
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATES: Mr. Nand Lal Thakur for R1-2 & Mr. Anshul Bansal,
Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Saurav Sharma for R3-4)
ORDER
Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):
1. This O.A has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against the memorandum dated 23.05.2023 (Annexure A-12) and memorandum dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure A-13), vide which the appliant has been issued charge memo along with statement of articles of charges. He is praying for quashing of Charge Memo Annexures A-12 and A-13 and quashing of Annexure A-20 qua which the respondent No.3 refused to grant earned leave.
Digitally signed by
BHANU BHANU PARTAP
PARTAP Date: 2025.05.28
14:41:37+05'30'
2
2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are that the applicant is working as a Postal Assistant in the Office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Shimla Division, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
3. The applicant initially joined the respondent department in September 2011 and remained posted at various places, including Kotkhai from 26.07.2011 to December 2011, followed by a deputation to Sub Post Office Bagain in January 2012. Subsequently, he was again posted at Kotkhai from June 2013 to June 2017, at GPO Shimla from June 2017 to 2020, then on deputation to the Circle Office at Kasumpti for one year, and was finally repatriated to his parent office at Shimla Division in September 2021.
4. The respondent No. 3 issued an impugned office order dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure A-1), whereby the applicant was transferred from the Office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Shimla Division, to Sunni Sub-Post Office.
5. The applicant submits that he being aggrieved by the impugned transfer order dated 09.02.2023, preferred Original Application No. 063/143/2023 before this Tribunal which was allowed vide order dated 09.05.2023 (Annexure A-2) and the impugned order dated 09.02.2023 was quashed and set aside. The applicant submitted his joining report on 15.05.2023 (Annexure A-3). However, respondent No. 3 again issued an office order dated 16.05.2023 (Annexure A-4), reaffirming the earlier transfer order, thereby ignoring the order passed by this Tribunal.
6. The applicant apprised respondent No. 3 about the possible contempt proceedings for disobedience of this Tribunal's order. Digitally signed by
BHANU BHANU PARTAP
PARTAP Date: 2025.05.28
14:41:37+05'30'
3
Subsequently, on 17.05.2023 (Annexure A-5), respondent No. 3 issued another office order directing the applicant to join duty in the Division Office Shimla immediately. However, thereafter, respondent No. 3 passed yet another transfer order dated 09.06.2023 transferring the applicant to Shimla GPO (Annexure A-6).
7. The applicant suffers from a serious health condition--Diffuse Disc Bulge at L4-5-- as per the medical documents annexed as Annexure A-7 (Colly). The applicant was previously invalidated from the Army on medical grounds on 31.12.2007 and was declared disabled. He has a disability of 30%, which is considered as 50% disability on the civil side, as per Annexure A-8.
8. The applicant submits that the impugned order (Annexure A-6) posting the applicant to Shimla GPO for heavy duty/counter/cash handling work was issued purely to harass and pressurize the applicant. The applicant had previously been assigned light duty/paperwork due to his medical condition. He was compelled to file a contempt petition (C.P. No. 43/2023 in O.A. No. 143/2023), which was listed on 06.07.2023. The petition was withdrawn after the applicant was informed that the respondents had assailed the Tribunal's order before the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
9. The respondents filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 4885/2023 titled Union of India & Others vs. Mohammad Hussain before the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The writ petition, along with Caveat Petition No. 170/2023, was listed for admission on 31.07.2023 but was dismissed at the admission stage. A copy of the judgment is annexed as Annexure A-9.
Digitally signed by
BHANU BHANU PARTAP
PARTAP Date: 2025.05.28
14:41:37+05'30'
4
10. The applicant submits that one Smt. Rohini Thakur, also an employee in the postal department, filed FIR No. 13/2023 dated 04.06.2023 against respondents No. 3 and 4 under Sections 354-A, 506 & 34 IPC, wherein the applicant is a material eyewitness. The applicant's statement was recorded in July 2023. The FIR and the statement are annexed as Annexures A-10, A-10/T, and A-11, respectively. The applicant submits that since then, respondent No. 3 has harbored ill-will against the applicant and has resorted to harassment, including interference in his medical documentation and vindictive transfers. On 23.05.2023, respondent No. 3 issued a memorandum (Annexure A-12) alleging that the applicant had demanded a bribe in the form of an apple box from one Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Postman. The applicant, being an orchardist, had no such requirement, and the memorandum is malicious in intent.
11. Another memorandum dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure A-13) was issued to the applicant, alleging tampering with official records in connivance with Smt. Rohini Thakur. The applicant duly submitted replies to both memoranda, annexed as Annexure A-14 (29.05.2023) and Annexure A-15 (08.06.2023). No show cause notice was ever issued to the applicant.
12. The applicant also submitted a detailed representation dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure A-16) to respondent No. 2, exposing various irregularities committed by respondent No. 3, such as misuse of office resources and fraudulent salary disbursals. No response has been received on this representation till date.
13. It is further submitted that respondent No. 3 subsequently withdrew the charge memo against Smt. Rohini Thakur vide Digitally signed by BHANU BHANU PARTAP PARTAP Date: 2025.05.28 14:41:37+05'30' 5 withdrawal dated 14.07.2023 (Annexure A-17), while continuing to pursue the same against the applicant. This discriminatory treatment highlights the malafide and retaliatory attitude of the respondents. Furthermore, both respondents have allegedly pressured the applicant to resile and withdraw from the statement already made in the Police Station in July, 2023. It is further submitted that the applicant was compelled to appear before the medical board on multiple occasions. Office orders dated 23.06.2023, 14.07.2023, and 04.08.2023 in this regard are annexed as Annexure A-18 (Colly). Despite clear medical advice for rest and follow-up treatment (Annexure A-19 Colly), the respondents continued to harass the applicant on medical grounds.
14. It is submitted that the applicant was denied earned leave despite having a balance of 150 days, as evident from his email dated 20.07.2023 and the rejection thereof on the same day (Annexure A-20). Thereafter the applicant submits that in light of the above, it has become impossible for him to work under respondents No. 3 and 4. He prays for his posting to the Postal Store Depot, CPC, Circle Office, or on deputation in the Circle Office. He submits that the respondent No. 3 has no authority to appoint Inquiry or Presenting Officers, as he is himself an accused in FIR No. 13/2023. The appointment orders issued in respect of charge memoranda dated 23.05.2023 and 30.05.2023 are annexed as Annexure A-21 (Colly) and Annexure A-22 (Colly) respectively.
15. Respondents No.1&2 filed written statement wherein it is submitted that the Original Application (O.A.) is liable to be dismissed as the Applicant has failed to exhaust the departmental remedies available to him prior to invoking the jurisdiction of this Digitally signed by BHANU BHANU PARTAP PARTAP Date: 2025.05.28 14:41:37+05'30' 6 Tribunal. Section 20 of the said Act mandates that a Government servant must first seek redress through the departmental channels.
16. Further it is submitted that the applicant was posted at the Division Office, Shimla from 27.09.2021. During the course of his posting, certain irregularities came to light, including (i) tampering with official records and (ii) a conversation regarding illegal gratification in the form of one box of apples for facilitating transfer. Preliminary inquiries were duly conducted into both incidents. Based on findings, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 through Memoranda dated 23.05.2023 and 30.05.2023 issued by Respondent No. 3.
17. The allegation that these disciplinary proceedings are in any way connected to FIR No. 13/2023 dated 04.06.2023 lodged by one Smt. Rohini Thakur, are denied by the respondents as the memoranda in question were issued prior to the said FIR and are based on independent allegations of misconduct by the Applicant.
18. The respondents allege that the Applicant has failed to join duties at his place of temporary attachment (Shimla GPO) and has instead continuously submitted medical leave applications, thereby obstructing the functioning of the office and avoiding the ongoing disciplinary proceedings. The Applicant was transferred to the Division Office, Shimla pursuant to the orders of this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 063/143/2023. In view of his involvement in tampering with records, he was temporarily attached to Shimla GPO (same building) as a precautionary measure pending disciplinary proceedings. His Contempt Petition (C.P. No. 43/2023) Digitally signed by BHANU BHANU PARTAP PARTAP Date: 2025.05.28 14:41:37+05'30' 7 challenging the attachment was withdrawn without condition. It is denied that any pressure or heavy work was assigned to him.
19. The respondents submitted that the charges against Smt. Rohini Thakur pertain to forged documents, whereas the Applicant's misconduct relates to bribery and record tampering. The matters are unrelated. It is further submitted that the Applicant failed to appear before the Medical Board at DDU Shimla despite receiving treatment from private hospitals at Chandigarh and Solan.
20. Respondents No.3 & 4 have filed separate written statement wherein it is submitted that the Applicant was working as a Postal Assistant at the Division Office, Shimla since 27.09.2021 and was found involved in two separate acts of misconduct:
a. Tampering with Official Records: Upon preliminary inquiry, it was found that official records had been tampered with, presumably for extending some undue benefit to the Applicant. Accordingly, Memorandum dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure A-13) was issued under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
b. Illegal Gratification: In a separate incident, an audio clip surfaced in February 2023 on a WhatsApp group, allegedly revealing the Applicant demanding a box of apples in exchange for facilitating a transfer. Preliminary inquiry confirmed the Applicant's involvement, and he admitted to being part of the conversation. Consequently, Memorandum dated 23.05.2023 (Annexure A-12) was issued.
21. That the above two charge memoranda were issued independently after duly conducted preliminary inquiries and well before the registration of FIR No. 0013/2023 dated 04.06.2023 (Annexure Digitally signed by BHANU BHANU PARTAP PARTAP Date: 2025.05.28 14:41:37+05'30' 8 A-10). The FIR is not connected in any manner with the departmental proceedings, and any suggestion to the contrary is misleading and denied. It is submitted that the charge memorandum issued to another official, Smt. Rohini Thakur, was withdrawn by Respondent No. 3 to ensure impartiality and fairness in view of pending investigations and to uphold principles of natural justice. This cannot be compared to the Applicant's case, which involves separate and specific allegations.
22. It is further submitted that the applicant was asked to face Medical Board at DDU Hospital Shimla but he has mentioned his inability to face the Medical Board but has been allegedly seeking treatment from private hospitals at Chandigarh and Solan. He was temporarily attached to SHimla GPO in the same building but he disobeyed the orders of his superiors and submitted medical leave w.e.f 22.05.2023.
23. Applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents reiterating the contentions in the O.A and submitting that he has approached this Tribunal in accordance with law and is not required to exhaust any remedy under Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, when the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings is vitiated by malice and illegality. He submits that the impugned memorandums dated 23.05.2023 and 30.05.2023 were issued without jurisdiction and with malafide intent, to silence the Applicant for having exposed the acts of corruption and misconduct by Respondent No. 3, who is also an accused in FIR No. 0013 of 2023. He submits that the Memos issued are in violation of the directions of this Tribunal in OA No. 143/2023. The Applicant has also filed MA No. 2111/2023 for execution of the said order. He Digitally signed by BHANU BHANU PARTAP PARTAP Date: 2025.05.28 14:41:37+05'30' 9 submits that he was compelled to proceed on medical leave on the advice and approval of the Medical Board. Despite being aware of the Applicant's medical condition, Respondent No. 3, under the watch of Respondent No. 2, proceeded to issue charge memoranda without application of mind. It is further submitted that he was not even afforded a proper opportunity to be heard, especially in light of his medical condition.
24. The applicant submits that he had been consistently narrating the incident leading to the said FIR since August 2022, and the issuance of memorandums in May 2023 is evidently retaliatory.
25. This Tribunal has heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the Annexures attached with the O.A.
26. From the pleadings itself, it is clear that the applicant was earlier appointed as Postal Assistant in September 2011 and thereafter moved at various places. The Memorandums dated 23.05.2023 (Annexure A-12) and 30.05.2023 (Annexure A-13) were issued to the applicant. The impugned orders Annexures A-12 and A-13 challenged by the applicant on the ground that the action on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 is illegal and unfair and the same is the outcome of registration of FIR No.13/2023 dated 04.06.2023 which was registered by one Smt. Rohini Thakur and the impugned action of the respondents is the outcome of the said FIR as the statement of the applicant was recorded as witness in the said FIR. The applicant had also challenged his transfer order dated 09.02.2023 and the same was quashed by this Tribunal vide order dated 09.05.2023 (Annexure A-2). Though the respondents have filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, but the same was dismissed. The applicant submitted that the Digitally signed by BHANU BHANU PARTAP PARTAP Date: 2025.05.28 14:41:37+05'30' 10 representation made to the respondent No.3 qua impugned orders Annexure A-12 and A-13 has not been duly considered.
27. The further contention of the applicant is that the respondent No.3 has no authority to take any action and to issue any memorandum as he is an accused in FIR No. 13/2023, dated 04.06.2023, since the applicant was a witness in the said FIR and the act of respondent No.3 is arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and the same is also against the principle of natural justice, especially when the applicant had appeared as witness and the police has registered FIR under sections 354-A, 506, 34 registered by Smt. Rohini Thakur and the impugned action of the respondents are the outcome of the said FIR, where the applicant being a witness.
28. The specific stand taken by the official respondents No.1&2 is that the applicant has failed to exhaust the departmental remedies available to him prior to invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It has been submitted that during the course of posting at Division Office, Shimla from 27.09.2021, certain irregularities came to light including (i) tampering with official records and (ii) a conversation regarding illegal gratification in the form of one box of apples for facilitating transfer.
29. It has been further submitted by the respondents No.1 and 2 that the FIR No.13/2023 was alleged by Smt. Rohini Thakur on 04.06.2023 and the impugned Memorandums Annexures A-12 and A-13 were issued on 23.05.2023 and 30.05.2023 respectively, i.e., prior to the registration of FIR. The respondents submit that charges against Smt. Rohini Thakur pertains to submission of forged document documents whereas the charges against the applicant are related to bribery, record tampering. Digitally signed by
BHANU BHANU PARTAP
PARTAP Date: 2025.05.28
14:41:37+05'30'
11
30. Respondents No.3 and 4 filed separate reply wherein the stand taken by the respondents No.3 and 4 is that on preliminary inquiry it was found that the official records have been tampered with presumably for extending undue benefit to the applicant and further the second charge memo is relating to illegal gratification in a separate incident whereby the applicant demanding a box of apples in exchange for facilitating transfer. The stand of respondents No.3 and 4 is that the FIR No.13/2023 dated 04.06.2023 has no connection with the departmental proceeding against the applicant. The charge memorandum issued to Smt. Rohini Thakur was withdrawn by respondent No.3 in view of pending investigations and to ensure impartiality and fairness.
31. As per Annexure A-10, FIR was registered by Smt. Rohini Thakur on 04.06.2023 but the incident of occurrence is 05.04.2022. The said FIR has been registered against respondents No.3 and 4 under sections 354-A, 506 and 34 of IPC 1860. It is also clear as per Annexure A-11, the statement of the applicant has been recorded on 04.06.2023 and the applicant is a witness to the incident as narrated by Smt. Rohini Thakur qua the FIR No.13/2023. Though the Memorandum Annexure A-12 dated 23.05.2023, the issuing authority is respondent No.3, which is qua demanding bribe of one box of apples from Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Postman and similarly as per Annexure A-13 Memorandum has been issued by respondent No.3 dated 30.05.2023 qua the tempering/modifying the date of joining of the applicant in the tenure register of the Division. As per Annexure A-14 the applicant has replied to the Memorandum dated 23.05.2023 issued by respondent No.3 and also as per Annexure Digitally signed by BHANU BHANU PARTAP PARTAP Date: 2025.05.28 14:41:37+05'30' 12 A-15, the applicant has replied the Memorandum dated 30.05.2023.
32. The contention of the respondents No.3 and 4 is that the FIR No.13/2023 has been quashed and set aside and the respondents No.3 and 4 stand vacated vide order dated 15.10.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Cr.MMO No.976 of 2024. The same is placed on record. It is clear that the Hon'ble High Court has quashed and set aside the said FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the Competent Court of law and the accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them. This Tribunal has perused the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. The relevant para of the order are as under:
"2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that FIR, sought to be quashed, in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No. 2 Smt. Rohini Thakur (hereinafter 'complainant'), wherein she alleged that since September, 2021 she had been working in Postal Department and in the month of February, 2022 she has joined Shimla Division and since then, petitioners-accused, who were also working in same department had been sexually harassing her on one pretext or the other. She also alleged that on certain occasions petitioner-accused not only behaved indecently, but also made an attempt to outrage her modesty. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the petitioners-accused under relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code.
3. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has already presented challan in the competent Court of law against the petitioners-accused, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them and as such, petitioners-accused have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, forquashing of FIR as well as Digitally signed by BHANU BHANU PARTAP PARTAP Date: 2025.05.28 14:41:37+05'30' 13 consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law.
4. Pursuant to order dated 03.10.2024, respondent-State has filed status under the signatures of SHO, Women Police Station BCS, New Shimla, wherein factum of compromise has been duly acknowledged. Besides above, complainant has come present in Court and is being represented by Mr. S.S.Sood, Advocate. She states on oath that she of her own volition and without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioners-accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. She states that since FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that petitioners-accused have already apologized for their misbehaviour and have undertaken not to repeat such in act in future and as such, she shall have no objection in case, prayer made for quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted and petitioners-accused are acquitted of charges framed against them. While admitting contents of compromise placed on record to be correct, she also admits her signature thereupon. Her statement is taken on record.
11. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners-accused do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences, and as such, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioners-accused and complainant have compromised the matter inter se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.
12. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 13 of 2023, dated 04.06.2023, under Sections 354-A, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Women Police Station BCS, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law are quashed and set aside.
Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them."
Digitally signed by
BHANU BHANU PARTAP
PARTAP Date: 2025.05.28
14:41:37+05'30'
14
33. From the above, this Tribunal is of the view that as per FIR No.13/2023 which pertains to incident of 2022 and onwards to which the statement of the applicant was recorded under section 161 of Cr.PC, which shows that the respondents No.3 and 4 were aware of the said recording of statement in FIR No.13/2023 which was ultimately quashed by the Hon'ble High Court and the respondents No.3 and 4 were acquitted of charges on 15.10.2024. In such circumstances, it is an illegality on the part of respondent No.3 for issuance of the Memorandum of Charges as Annexures A-12 and A-13. Otherwise also, on the basis of natural justice, the respondent No.3 should not have issued the Memorandum of Charges against the applicant.
34. In view of the above discussion, the O.A is allowed. Annexures A-12 and A-13 are quashed and set aside. Respondents No.1 and 2 are at liberty to take action as per law, if so advised.
35. No costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
bp
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Digitally signed by
BHANU BHANU PARTAP
PARTAP Date: 2025.05.28
14:41:37+05'30'