Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Jitendra Singh vs M/O Defence on 25 November, 2024
O.A./1291/2012
(Reserved on 21.11.2024)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Original Application No.1291 of 2012
th
Pronounced on this the 25 Day of November, 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Jitendra Singh aged about 38 years, S/o Shri Babu Lal Yadava, Resident
of Village, Bamrauli Ka Pura, PO Bamrauli, District Allahabad - 211012
and serving in 29 Wing Air Force, Bamrauli, Allahabad.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Mukesh Kumar
Versus
1. Union of India through Defence Secretary Govt. of India, Ministry
of Defence, South block, New Delhi - 110011.
2. Chief of the Air Staff, Air Headquarters, Rafi Marg, New Delhi -
110011.
3. Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Headquarters, Central Air
Command, I.A.F., Bamrauli, Allahabad - 211012.
4. Senior Officer-in-Charge Administration, Headquarters, Central
Air Command, I.A.F., Bamrauli, Allahabad - 211012.
5. Station Commander, 29 Wing, Air Force, Bamrauli, Allahabad.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Daya Shankar Lal Srivastava
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A) Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"(i) To, Issue, a Writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the punishment order dated 30 Jan Digitally MADHU signed by Page 1 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./1291/2012 2012 (Annexure A-1 to compilation No 1) passed by Respondent No 5, and Appellate order dated 23 Jul 2012 (Annexure A-2 to compilation No 1) passed by Respondent No 4.
(ii) To issue, writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to restore his pay and allowances which has been reduced on account punishment awarded to the applicant and arrears of pay and allowances may be paid to the applicant along with 18% p.a. interest from the date of due amount to the date of actual payment.
(iii) To Issue another writ, order or direction in favour of the applicant as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of application in favour of the applicant."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed to the post of Washer UP on 11.09.1995 and subsequently he was promoted to the post MTD Grade-2 on 02.12.1997. On 26.02.2006, applicant was deployed in car No.91- B55871 during Pulse Polio Campaign Organized as the National Programme in connection to which he was served with a memorandum of Charges by Disciplinary Authority vide Memorandum dated 29-01-2007 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. The applicant submitted his reply to the Memo of charge on 29.01.2007 and demanded the copies of documents and also prayed that he may be heard in person. Flt Lt Sunil Gupta (28256-T) was appointed as Inquiry Officer and Shri C L Yadava, SS was appointed as Presenting Officer vide order dated 23-2-2007. The inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer. Inquiry Report was prepared and forwarded to the applicant vide letter dated 28-6-2008 and applicant was asked to submit his reply. Applicant submitted the reply vide his application dated 07-7-2008. Applicant was again asked to submit his reply vide letter dated 05-11-2008. Applicant again submitted his reply of Inquiry Report dated 15-1-2008 vide his application dated 18-11-2008. Then again the Applicant was asked to submit the reply to the Inquiry report dated 15-1-2008 vide letter dated 23-2- Digitally MADHU signed by Page 2 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./1291/2012 2010 which the applicant did vide application dated 9-3-2010. Disciplinary authority passed the punishment order dated 30.01.2012 by which the penalty imposed upon the applicant was-
"Reduction to the post of MTD (Ordinary Grade). His case for restoration to the post of MTD Grade II will not be considered in future". Thus, a severe punishment has been awarded to the applicant. On 19.03.2012, the applicant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority against the punishment order dated 30.01.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate authority passed the order dated 23-7-2012 and rejected the appeal of the applicant.
3. The main grounds taken by the applicant in the instant OA are as under :-
(i) The copies of documents and statements of witnesses were not supplied to the applicant along with memo of charges which compromised his defence. It is a mandatory requirement of law to supply the copies relied upon with the charge sheet.
(ii) The disciplinary authority has accepted the illegal findings of the Inquiry Officer which are not based on the records of the Inquiry proceedings. Thus assessment made by disciplinary authority is without application of mind and is liable to be rejected.
(iii) The disciplinary authority while passing the order did not consider the reply of the applicant dated 9-3-2010 and passed the punishment order.
(iv) The punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority is not based on the inquiry proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer and as such the same is liable to be set aside.
(v) The impugned order dated 30.01.2012 has been passed by the non competent authority and as such punishment order is illegal and liable to be set aside.
(vi) The order dated 23.07.2012 passed by Appellate authority is without application of mind and also without observing the Digitally MADHU signed by Page 3 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./1291/2012 provisions of Rule 27(2) of CCS (CC&A) Rules 1965 and as such appellate order is illegal and liable to be set aside.
(vii) Both the orders i.e. order of disciplinary authority dated 30 January 2012 and appellate order dated 23 July 2012 are illegal and as such both the orders are liable to be set aside by the Hon'ble Tribunal.
4. In their counter reply, the respondents have submitted that a Pulse Polio Campaign was held at 29 Wing on 26.02.2006 as part of the National Programme to eradicate Polio. Late 711969-T Cpl Praveen Kumar, med Asst of 29 Wing was detailed for the said purpose. He was accompanied by two civilians named Shri Santosh Kumar and Shri Sufiyan Ahmed (Ex-Seasonal Anti Malaria Lascar). They were travelling in service Vehicle BA No.91B55871-A Ambassador Car driven by the applicant. The said service vehicle met with an accident outside the camp. The vehicle collided with a tree and the impact of the collision was very severe as passengers sitting in the near seat were forced to the front seat. Cpl Praveen Kumar died as a result of the accident while the two civilians sustained injuries. A Court of Inquiry has been ordered to inquire into the matter. The Court of Inquiry has recommended that the disciplinary action be initiated against the applicant as per existing rules. Thereafter, the applicant was served with a memorandum of Charges by Disciplinary Authority vide memorandum dated 19.01.2007 under Rule-14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The following two articles of charges were framed against the applicant:-
a) Article-I - That said PA No.38815-H, Shri Jitendra Singh, MTD was the driver of service Car No.91B55871 during Pulse Polio Campaign organized as part of the National Programme on 26 Feb 2006. According to the report of the Court of Inquiry he was driving the said car at a very high speed.
b) Article-II - That the said PA No.38815-H Shri Jitendra Singh, MTD was driver of service car No.91B55871 during Pulse Polio Campaign organized as part of the National Programme on 26 Feb 2006. According to the Court of Inquiry he had consumed liquor.
Digitally MADHU signed by Page 4 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./1291/2012 A Board of Inquiry was constituted in terms of Rule-14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 to inquire into the charges framed vide memo dated 19.01.2007. Flt Lt. Sunil Gupta was appointed as the Inquiring Authority to inquire into the Articles of charges. The Inquiring Authority vide Report dated 15.01.2008 analyzed the evidence on the record in the Board of Inquiry and gave the finding that Article-1 is proved against the applicant whereas Article-II is not proved against him. Subsequently a copy of Inquiry Report dated 15.01.2008 was sent to the applicant and he was given opportunity for making written representations, if any, before the Disciplinary Authority. The applicant submitted the representation dated 07.07.2008, 15.11.2008 and 09.03.2010. The said representations of the applicant was considered by the Disciplinary Authority and after careful consideration of the report of the Inquiry Officer, it awarded the major penalty vide order dated 30.01.2012. Subsequently, the applicant preferred an Appeal dated 19.03.2012 under Rule-23 of CCS (CCA) Rules against the order dated 30.01.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The abovementioned Appeal dated 19.03.2012 was duly considered and examined by the Competent Appellate Authority and on the basis of records of the disciplinary proceedings and Inquiry Report rejected the Appeal being devoid of merit and passed the speaking order dated 23.07.2012. The Appellate Authority vide speaking order dated 23.07.2012 confirmed the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. It was also mentioned that in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it can be established that the Major Penalty awarded to the applicant by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 30.01.2012 is just and appropriate by the competent authority under the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal dated 19.03.2012 of the applicant against the disciplinary authority order dated 30.01.2012 has also been considered by the Appellate Authority and rejected being devoid of merit vide speaking order dated 23.07.2012 and as such the instant Original Application is devoid of merit and relief Digitally MADHU signed by Page 5 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./1291/2012 sought by the applicant in the instant Original Application is liable to be rejected by this Hon'ble Court.
5. In his rejoinder, the applicant has almost reiterated the facts narrated in the OA and further submitted that there are 17 listed witnesses in the Memo of charge. Out of which only four witnesses have been produced and examined by the Inquiry Officer. Remaining 13 witnesses have not been examined by the Inquiry Officer. The Presenting Officer, on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority should have produced all the listed witnesses before the inquiry and an opportunity of cross examination should have been given to the applicant. The order dated 30-1-2012 has been passed by a non competent authority and also appellate order dated 23.07.2012 has been passed by a non competent authority. Therefore both the orders have been passed arbitrarily and illegally having lack of jurisdiction. It is further stated that the respondents have wrongly and illegally considered the statements of witness No 2 Shri Jaikaran Singh Yadava that the speed of the vehicle was not less than 80 KM p.h, whereas the witnesses who have given the statements stating that the speed of the vehicle could not have been less than 50 K,M,/.P.h.. The statements of other witnesses viz Serva Shri Santosh Keshwarwani, Witness No 1, Shrichandra, Witness No 3, Shri Santosh Kumar, Witness No 5, and Defence witness No 1 Shri Mithlesh Kumar have not been relied upon by the Inquiry Officer arbitrarily and illegally. The statement of Shri Jaikaran Singh Yadava who has not given any justification for the speed of the vehicle has been relied on by the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, the Inquiry report is perverse. The disciplinary authority passed an Illegal order of punishment against the applicant.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted the written submission wherein it is stated that the Commanding Officer made a report against the applicant that the applicant was driving the said car at a very high speed and he had consumed liquor. Two Articles of charges were levelled against the applicant one being Digitally MADHU signed by Page 6 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./1291/2012 of driving, the said car with very high Speed and second being under consumption of liquor. The applicant submitted his representation on 07.07.2008 and demanded the copy of statement and also copy of documents. The applicant submitted the reply of memo of charges dated 19.01.2007 vide application dated 29.01.2007 and denied the charges and demanded the copies of document listed in Annexure No.3 and copies of statement of witnesses listed in Annexure No.4 of memo of charges and also prayed that he may be heard in person. The applicant was neither supplied the copy of statement of the witnesses nor the copy of show cause notice and without supplying the same the impugned punishment order has been passed. While imposing impugned punishment the fact and circumstances of the case has not been considered either by the punishing authority or by the appellate authority. It is submitted that regarding the accident on the basis of which the applicant has been awarded punishment, no FIR or any information had been given by the department. The disciplinary authority has not considered the points raised by the applicant in his representation and the appellate authority also did not consider the grounds mentioned in memo of appeal which violates the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order dated 30.01.2012 and 23.07.2012 are liable to be set aside.
7. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the documents available on record.
8. The applicant has submitted that the respondents have not provided the copy of the relied upon documents and have not given proper opportunity to defend himself which violates the Principles of natural justice. In this connection, vide letter dated 02.03.2007 the applicant was asked to finalise the inspection date of original document and submission of list of additional documents and witnesses. In reply to the above suggestion, the applicant submitted that his Defence Assistant would do so on his behalf. On daily order sheet No.5 dated 06.04.2007 in para 02, it is mentioned that inspection of the original documents mentioned Digitally MADHU signed by Page 7 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./1291/2012 in Annexure-3 of the memorandum of charge, was carried out by the Defence Assistant and he satisfied himself. Copy of the documents demanded by the applicant was provided. The said daily order sheet No.5 has been signed by the applicant. On daily order sheet No.10 dated 04.12.2007 Defence Assistant was asked whether he wants to produce any other document to which he replied that one witness listed at Sl. No.6 (Shri Santosh Kumar) is an essential witness as he was available in the vehicle at the time of accident and as such he should be produced before the inquiry for examination which was granted by the Inquiry Officer. On 05.12.2007 Shri Santosh Kumar (listed as witness No.6) appeared and his statement was recorded with that Inquiry Officer closed the prosecution and asked the applicant to put up his defence statement. The Defence Assistant wanted time to submit the written statement and also wanted to examine Mr. Mithilesh Kumar as defence witness which was granted by the Inquiry Officer. On 08.12.2007, the Defence Assistant was examined and defence side was also closed. The Inquiry Officer asked the applicant whether he got sufficient opportunity for his defence and whether he is satisfied that the inquiry was conducted in a fair manner to which the applicant has replied in affirmative. The daily order sheet No.12 was signed by the applicant. By this, it is clear that sufficient opportunity was provided to the applicant and the plea taken by him that order against him was passed in violation of Principle of natural justice does not have any basis.
9. In his written statement, the applicant has submitted that disciplinary authority may pursue the written brief of Defence Assistant dated 02.01.2008 and finding given on charge No.1 by the Inquiry Officer may be rejected. The assessment and finding may be given to him while passing the final order. He has accepted the findings given by the Inquiry Officer for Article of charge No.2.
10. The other issue raised by the applicant is that the order passed by disciplinary authority and appellate authority is by an incompetent Digitally MADHU signed by Page 8 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./1291/2012 officer. The order of disciplinary authority is passed by Shri N.K. Atri, GP Capt, STn Cdr and Appeal order has been passed by Shri Amit Tiwari, Air Vice Marshal, Senior Officer-in-Charge Administration as per notification submitted by the respondents in Annexure -3. The above is the competent to pass the disciplinary order and appellate order in the case of the applicant. Hence, the contention of the applicant that the disciplinary and appellate order was passed by an incompetent authority is not correct. On verification of documents and facts in this OA, it is found that there was no lacuna in conduct of the inquiry. In his relief clause, the applicant has not challenged the inquiry report.
11. The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is very limited. The Court or Tribunal can interfere only if there is violation of principles of natural justice and only if there is violation of statutory rules or if it is a case of no evidence. The Tribunal or the Court cannot sit as an appellate authority.
12. Factually, the impact of the collision of vehicle which met with an accident was very severe. The occupant on the front seat had a severe head injury and did not survive. The occupants occupying the back seat were forced on the front seat and none of the occupants of the Car was able to get out of the Car. They were helped and taken out from the Car and sent for treatment. If the driver had been driving the vehicle under controlled speed, he could have avoided that collision or atleast could have had a very light collision. As the speed of the car cannot be reckoned exactly by an outsider, one can only have some reasonable guess. The evidence of an outsider, which has been relied upon by the inquiry officer, and the condition of the car as well as its occupants reasonably throw the light on the fact that the car was running at very high speed, although it cannot be said whether it was 70 or 80 Km per hour.
13. Thus, the Tribunal agrees with the findings of the inquiry officer and the fact that the conduct of the applicant is grievous enough to attract a major penalty, yet, so far as the punishment awarded to Digitally MADHU signed by Page 9 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./1291/2012 the applicant is concerned, the applicant has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of R. Dhakshinamurthy vs The Desk Officer (Vigilance Petition) (W.P. No. 28462 of 2013) decided on 11.03.2015 wherein it has been held as under:
"25. Fundamental Rule 29 contains three sub-rules. The first sub-rule deals with reduction to a lower stage in the same time scale of pay. Therefore, it corresponds to Rule 11(iii)(a) and Rule 11(v) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Since we are not concerned here with a case of reduction in the same time scale of pay, we need not look at sub-rule (1) of Fundamental Rule 29.
26. But sub-rules (2) and (3) of Fundamental Rule 29 deal with the penalty of reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower scale and they correspond to Rule 11(vi) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Therefore, let us look at sub-rules (2) and (3) of Fundamental Rule 29, which read as follows:-
"29(2) If a Government servant is reduced as a measure of penalty to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower scale, the authority ordering the reduction shall specify:-
(a) the period for which the reduction shall be effective; and
(b) whether, on restoration, the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increments and, if so, to what extent.
(3) The Government servant shall regain his original seniority in the higher service, grade or post on his restoration to the service, grade or post from which he was reduced."
27. Interestingly, sub-rules (2) and (3) of Fundamental Rule 29, which we have extracted above, were actually substituted just about 14 months ago by way of amendment issued in G.I., Department of Personnel and Training O.M.No.6/2/2013-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 10.12.2013.
28. It is seen from the language employed in sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 29 that reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower scale should always be for a specified period and the rules certainly contemplate restoration not only to the post from which reduction was ordered but also the restoration of seniority.
29. But unfortunately, the Administrative Instructions issued under Fundamental Rule 29, are in tune with the Administrative Instructions issued to Rule 11(vi) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Despite the fact that sub-rules (2) and (3) of Fundamental Rule 29, in their present form, were incorporated only in the year 2013, the Government of India had not modified the original Administrative Instructions issued way back in G.I., M.H.A., O.M.No.9/13/62- Estt.(D) dated 10.10.1962 and No.9/30/63-Estt.(D) dated 7.2.1964. This is why the same set of Digitally MADHU signed by Page 10 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./1291/2012 Administrative Instructions are also followed in respect of Rule 11(vi) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
30. The Administrative Instructions issued under G.I., M.H.A., O.M.No. 9/13/62- Estt.(D) dated 10.10.1962 and No.9/30/63-Estt.(D) dated 7.2.1964 read as follows:-
"Certain doubts have arisen regarding the consequence of an order of reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time-scale and it has also been found that there has been no uniformity in determining the consequence of such reduction. Where such an order is passed, two questions often arise for consideration, namely:-
(i) when should the Government servant so punished be considered eligible for re-promotion; and
(ii) how should the seniority of such a Government servant be determined on re-promotion.
2. The order imposing the penalty of reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time-scale may not specify the period of reduction. Where the order does not specify the period of reduction and there is coupled with it an order declaring the Government servant permanently unfit for promotion, the question of re-promotion will, obviously, not arise. In other cases, where the period of reduction is not specified, the Government servant should be deemed to be reduced for an indefinite period, i.e., till such date as, on the basis of his permanence subsequent to the order of reduction, he may be considered fit for promotion. On re-promotion, the seniority of such a Government servant should be determined by the date of re-promotion. In all such cases, the person loses his original seniority in the higher service, grade or post entirely. On re-promotion, the seniority of such a Government servant should be determined by the date of re-promotion without regard to the service rendered by him in such service, grade or post prior to his reduction.
(3) The more common course is to specify the period of reduction and except when it is intended to debar a Government servant from promotion permanently, it is the preferable course.
Accordingly, it has been decided in consultation with the Ministries of Law and Finance that in future, an order imposing the penalty of reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time-scale should invariably specify--
(i) the period of reduction, unless the clear intention is that, the reduction should be permanent or for an indefinite period;
(ii) whether on such re-promotion, the Government servant will regain his original seniority in the higher service, grade or post or higher time-scale which has been assigned to him prior to the imposition of the penalty.
Digitally MADHU signed by Page 11 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./1291/2012 In cases where the reduction is for a specified period and is not to operate to postpone future increments, the seniority of the Government servant may, unless the terms of the order of punishment provide otherwise be fixed in the higher service, grade or post or the higher time-scale at what it would have been but for its reduction.
Where the reduction is for a specified period and is to operate to postpone future increments, the seniority of the Government servant on re-promotion may, unless the terms of the order of punishment provide otherwise, be fixed by giving credit for the period of service rendered by him in the higher service, grade or post or higher time-scale.
4. If the order of reduction is intended for an indefinite period, the order should be framed as follows:-
'A' is reduced to the lower post / grade / service of 'X' until he is found fit by the Competent Authority to be restored to the higher post / grade / service of 'Y'.
In cases where it is intended that the fitness of the Government servant for re-promotion or restoration to his original position will be considered only after a specified period, the order should be made in the following form:-
'A' is reduced to the lower post / grade / service of 'X'until he is found fit, after a period of ..... years from the date of his order, to be restored to the higher post of 'Y'. "
31. Therefore, two things are clear from Fundamental Rule 29 (2) and (3) and the Administrative Instructions issued in the Office Memoranda dated 10.10.1962 and 7.2.1964. They are:
(1) that the Rules contemplate reduction to a lower service, post or scale only for a period to be specified in the order and they also contemplate restoration not merely to the original post but also the restoration of seniority after the period of punishment is undergone and (2) that it is only the Administrative Instructions which actually allowed reduction for an indefinite or an unspecified period.
32. Similarly, Rule 11(vi) of the CCS (CCA) Rules also contemplate, reduction to a lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or service only "for a period to be specified in the order of penalty", along with a further direction in the very same order of penalty as to whether the officer will or will not gain increments or promotion during the sufferance of penalty and whether he will regain his seniority after expiry of the period of penalty. But it is only under the Administrative Instructions of the years 1962, 1964 and 2007 that the Government had indicated the availability of a power to order reduction to a lower post on a permanent basis or for an unspecified period. Therefore, it is doubtful whether by Administrative Instructions, the scope of the Statutory Rule issued in exercise of the power conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution could be enlarged.
Digitally MADHU signed by Page 12 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./1291/2012
33. The reason as to why we doubt the existence of such a power is that even the power of denial of promotion to the Government servant, as a consequence of reduction to a lower grade or post, is made available under Rule 11(vi) only for a specified period. Rule 11(vi) clearly states "reduction to a lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or service, for a period to be specified in the order of penalty, which shall be a bar to the promotion of the Government servant during such specified period to the time-scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced."
34. The only tampering that could be made to a penalty of reduction to a lower grade or post, is to say whether after re-promotion to the old post, the Government servant will have his seniority restored or not and to say whether the period of reduction will operate to postpone future increments. In other words, by virtue of clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 11(vi), the disciplinary authority is competent to impose the penalty of reduction to a lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or service for a period specified in the order, which shall have the effect of barring the Government servant from seeking any promotion during that period, either with or without the same operating to postpone future increments after re-promotion and with or without the same allowing the restoration of his seniority upon re-promotion.
35. Therefore, the interpretation by way of Administrative Instructions given to the above Rule, virtually seeks to destroy the effect of clauses (a) and (b) and to seal the fate of an employee for ever. Such a penalty in given cases, may be much worse than the penalty of even compulsory retirement. In the case on hand, the employee appears to be 52 years of age when he filed the writ petition in the year 2013. The order of penalty was dated 10.11.2004. Therefore, if the order is understood to be one of permanent reduction till the retirement of the petitioner, it would have the effect of freezing the service life of the petitioner in the post of Time Scale Postal Assistant for a period of almost 16 to 18 years. This does not appear to be the consequence envisaged in Rule 11(vi), though it has been interpreted as such by way of Administrative Instructions.
36. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the Respondents, in the light of what we have indicated above. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the Original Application filed by the petitioner in O.A.No.40 of 2010 is allowed, setting aside the order dated 10.11.2004 issued by the first respondent. The matter is remitted back to the second respondent namely the Member (Personnel) of the Postal Services Board, instead of the first respondent, in view of the fact that the matter requires a fresh look at the Rules vis a vis, the Administrative Instructions. The second respondent shall look in to the matter in the light of the observations made above and pass fresh orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
Digitally MADHU signed by Page 13 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./1291/2012
14. In view of the aforequoted case law, the punishment imposed upon the applicant i.e. "Reduced to the post of MTD (Ordinary Grade). His case for restoration to the post of MTD Grade-II will not be considered in future" permanently freezes the service life of the applicant and since the administrative rules require a time frame for reduction in post and scale which cannot be done permanently, the impugned orders dated 30.01.2012 and 23.07.2012 are hereby set aside and the competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to reconsider the punishment to be awarded to the applicant on the basis of the inquiry report other than the one imposed upon him. The said exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
15. The O.A. stands disposed of with above directions. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off. No order as to costs.
(Mohan Pyare) ( Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Madhu
Digitally
MADHU signed by Page 14 of 14
KUMARI MADHU
KUMARI