Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Hrudananda Sethi vs Department Of Posts on 19 June, 2025
1 O.A.No. 260/00173 of 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00173 of 2024
Reserved on 18.06.2025 Pronounced on 19.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Hrudananda Sethi, aged about 62 years, S/o. Late
Jaya Krishna Sethi, Village-Koshpur, P.S./Dist.-
Bhadrak, At present Mirpatna, Po/P.S./Dist.-
Kendrapara.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through the Director
General Post New Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle,
Bhubaneswar, Dist.-Khurda.
3. Superintendent of Post, Kendrapara Division,
Kendrapara.
4. Superintendent of Post, Cuttack North Division,
Cuttack.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Ms. Madhumita Panda, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. C.R.Behera, Counsel
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (Admn.):
The facts of the matter are that on the allegation of dishonestly and fraudulently withdrawing/swindling the money of the depositors thereby committing criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery, while working as Postal Assistant, Jajpur Road, Railway 2 O.A.No. 260/00173 of 2024 SO on collusion with two others, on 08.02.1994 CBI/SPE, Bhubaneswar registered a case bearing No. RC 17(A)/94, which was admitted for trial U/s 120-B/420/468 IPC in SPE Case No. 43/1994 by the Learned CJM (CBI), Bhubaneswar. Meanwhile, the applicant was posted as PA, Pattamundai MDH. The Learned Special CJM (CBI) Bhubaneswar, vide judgement dated 05.03.2002, sentenced the applicant to undergo RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- in default RI for six months on each count and further sentenced him to undergo RI for one year U/s 471 IPC with further direction that the substantive sentences noted above to run concurrently. Against the order dated 05.03.2002 in SPE Case No. 43/1994, the applicant preferred criminal appeal No. 16/2002, which was dismissed on 21.12.2002 by the Learned Additional District and sessions Judge FTC No.2, Bhubaneswar. Thereafter, the applicant preferred Criminal Revision No. 21/2003 before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.
2. Similar case was also registered against one Sri Achyuta Nanda Panda wherein the order of his conviction was also challenged by him before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in Criminal Revision No. 17/2003.
3 O.A.No. 260/00173 of 2024
3. Following his conviction, vide order dated 05.03.2004, applicant was given opportunity of personal hearing so also submission of representation for the proposed action sought to be taken by the department in exercise of the power under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. After giving personal hearing on 16.02.2004 and considering his representation dated 23.03.2004, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 30.03.2004 in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 19(1) of CCs (CCA) Rules, 1965 dismissed the applicant from service with immediate effect.
4. As it further appears from the record, the applicant preferred appeal on 30.06.2004 and 09.07.2004. While the matter stood thus, he challenged the order of the DA dated 30.03.2004 before this Bench in OA No. 146/2004. During pendency of this OA, his appeal dated 30.06.2004 and 09.07.2004 were considered and rejected by the AA vide order dated 28.06.2005. When the OA NO. 146/2004 was listed for adjudication on 05.05.2008, Ld. Counsel appearing for him submitted that meantime his appeal has been rejected, which has been challenged by him in separate OA. On the basis of the said submission OA No. 146/2004 was dismissed as infructuous on 05.05.2008.
4 O.A.No. 260/00173 of 2024
5. The CRLREV No. 21/2003 filed by the applicant was heard and allowed in a common judgment dated 18.12.2023 by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa along with CRLREV No. 17/2003 filed by Sri Achyuta Nanda Panda by setting aside their conviction U/s 420/468/471 read with section 120-B of the IPC thereby acquitting them in all the charges. Meanwhile, applicant reached the age of superannuation. Hence, by making representation dated 20.01.2024, it has been stated inter alia that in view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, he is entitled to be reinstated in service and is eligible to receive all service pecuniary and retirement benefits and, therefore, appropriate order may be passed to the above effect.
6. Alleging no action on his representation, he has filed the instant OA praying inter alia as under:
"a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to hold the impugned order of dismissal from service dtd. 30.03.2004 (Annexure-A/3) passed by disciplinary authority and order dtd. 28.06.2005 (Annexure-A/4) passed by the Appellate Authority as arbitrary illegal non-est in the eyes of law and may be quashed, Keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble High Court passed in Crl. Revision No. 21/2003, dated 18.12.2023.
b) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the authority to extend all service benefits, arrear salary and pensionary benefits within a short stipulated period.
c) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to other order/orders, direction/directions as would be deem fit 5 O.A.No. 260/00173 of 2024 and proper in fact & circumstances of this case and for the said act of kindness the applicant as is duly bound shall ever pray."
7. The facts noted above are not in dispute in the counter filed by the respondents. However, it has been stated that since it is a year old matter, the documents are under collection and under examination in accordance with the rules, which entailed some time.
8. The applicant filed rejoinder wherein it has been stated that since the dismissal of the applicant was based on the conviction in SPE Case No. 43/1994 upheld in criminal appeal No. 16/2002 by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge FTC No.2, Bhubaneswar, which having been set aside, thereby acquitting the applicant from all the charges, he is entitled to be reinstatement into service with all consequential service and financial benefits and after reaching the age of superannuation pension and pensionary benefits.
9. In order to strengthen the respective stands noted above, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Ram Lal Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 7935 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 33423/2018), State of Odisha & Anr. Vs Anup Kumar Senapati & Anr, 2019(12) Scale 387 and R.Muthu Kumar Vs Chairman & 6 O.A.No. 260/00173 of 2024 M.D., Tangeco, 2022 LiveLaw SC 140, and of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the cases of Sunita Sahu Vs Principal Secy. to Govt. of Odisha & Ors., W.P.(C) (OAS) No. 12/2018, Akshaya Kumar Dash Vs State of Odisa & Ors, W.P(C) No. 5483/2024, Smt. Nirmala Sahoo Vs State of Odisha & Ors, W.P(C) No. 25947/2022, Sailendra Nath Mohanty Vs UOI & Ors, W.P(C) No. 19619/2010, and Ld. Counsel for the respondents also placed reliance in the case of State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. Umesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304.
10. Fact remains that the applicant was dismissed from service by the order of the DA dated 30.03.2004, which he has challenged before this Tribunal in OA 146/2004. The said OA was dismissed as infructuous on 05.05.2008 on the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that the applicant meanwhile filed another OA challenging the order of the AA dated 28.06.2005. But, neither in the pleadings nor in course of hearing any light was thrown on the OA stated to have been filed by the applicant challenging the order of the AA upholding the order of the DA. In this OA filed on 13.03.2024, the applicant has sought to declare the order of the DA dated 30.03.2004 as illegal, arbitrary and nonest in the eyes of law. No document has been the applicant seeking modification/review of the order of this Bench dated 05.05.2008 dismissing the OA as 7 O.A.No. 260/00173 of 2024 infructuous. Similarly, without specifying the fate of the OA stated to have been filed by him against the order of the AA dated 28.06.2005, he once again sought to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and nonest in the eyes of law.
11. Be that as it may, in the counter it has specifically been stated that this being a year old mater, the respondents department is collecting documents to give consideration to the representation filed by the applicant on 20.01.2024, which has entailed some time. Consideration of the service grievance of an employee at the hands of the authority concerned at the first instance is a precondition as per the law. Since, the matter is under consideration at the hands of the authorities, expressing any opinion on the matter may cause prejudice to either of the parties. Therefore, for the ends of justice, this OA is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2, i.e. CPMG, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar to pass appropriate order on the representation of the applicant dated 20.01.2024 in accordance with rules/law within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the applicant. No costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) RK/PS