Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Md Karim Molla vs Posts on 23 July, 2025
1 OA 350.1639 of 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
No. O.A. 350/1639/2022 Date of Hearing : 16.07.2025
Date of Order : 23.07.2025
Present : Hon'ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Judicial Member
Md. Karim Molla, son of Sahadat Molla, aged about 36
years, working as T.S. Driver under Senior Manager,
Mail Motor Services, Beliaghata, Kolkata-700 015;
residing at vill.No.3, Chouddarasi, P.O. & P.S. Raidighi,
Dist.24 Pgs.(South), Pin-743 383
........ Applicant.
- VERSUS-
1. Union of India, service through the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications, Deptt. of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001;
2. The Chief Post Master General, West Bengal Circle,
Yogayog Bhawan, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata - 700 012;
3. The Post Master General, South Bengal Region,
Yogayog Bhawan, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata - 700012;
4. The Director of Postal Services, HQ, Office of the
Chief Postmaster General, W.B. Circle, Yogayog
Bhawan, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata - 700012;
5. The Senior Manager, Mail Motor Services, Deptt. of
Posts, 139, Beliaghata Road, Kolkata-700 015;
6. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Vishakhapatnam Division & Ad hoc Disciplinary
Authority, Vishakhapatnam - 530 001;
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone=
248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.08.04 14:23:49+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 OA 350.1639 of 2022
7. Sri Naten Chandra Sahoo, Supdt.(Mail & TD), Kolkata
RMS Division, Deptt. of Posts, Kolkata-700 001 &
Enquiry Officer.
....... Respondents.
For the Applicant : Mr. K. Sarkar , Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr. S.K. Ghosh, Counsel
ORDER
Rajnish Kumar Rai, Judicial Member:
The applicant has filed this Original Application, seeking the following relief(s):
"i) To direct the respondents to cancel, withdraw and/or rescind the impugned reasoned and/or speaking order dated 28.07.2022; order of punishment dated 17.05.2022, enquiry proceedings during the period from 15.11.2019 to 23.02.2021. Enquiry Report dated 15.09.2021 and Chargesheet dated 25.07.2019; as contained in Annexures "A-13", "A-10", "A-7" & "A-5" respectively;
ii) To direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service forthwith and to grant and pay all salaries, service benefits etc. to the applicant after reinstatement in his service and post;
iii) To direct the respondents to produce the entire records of the case before this Hon'ble Tribunal for effective adjudication of the issues involved herein;
iv) And to pass such further or other order or orders as to this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
(a) The applicant was appointed in the office of the respondents as T.S. Driver against OBC quota on 22.04.2016 (Annexure A/1). Before his appointment, he submitted a duly filled Attestation Form dated 31.03.2016, Identity Certificate dated 29.03.2016 and Character Certificate dated 29.03.2016 to Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.04 14:23:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
3 OA 350.1639 of 2022 the competent authorities, as desired by them. Thereafter the Respondent No.5 vide Memorandum dated 27.05.2017 (Annexure A/3) forwarded the said documents to the District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas for verification and submission of report.
b) Grievance of the applicant is that he was issued with a charge sheet dated 25.07.2019 (Annexure A/5) under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 by the respondents, whereby it was alleged that he had suppressed material information regarding pendency of criminal cases against him at the time of his appointment. It has been stated in Article-I of the said charge sheet that a report was received from the Office of the District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata -700027 dated 27.08.2018, wherein it was mentioned that the applicant was involved in two criminal cases i.e. c/w (1) Raidighi PS Case No.54/12 dated 02.04.2012 u/s 498A/34 IPC, which ended in charge sheet dated 11.04.2012 and another is Raidighi PS Case No.139/2012 dated 16.07.2012 u/s 147/148/149/325/326/307/379/354/506/IPC, which ended in Charge Sheet vide C/S No.146/2012.
c) On the basis of the aforementioned chargesheet, inquiry was conducted and Inquiry Report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 15.09.2021 (Annexure A/7) by stating that Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.04 14:23:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA 350.1639 of 2022 the charges framed against the charged official were established and proved substantially. The applicant submitted a representation against the said Inquiry Report on 01.02.2022 (Annexure A/8) denying the charges levelled against him, but to no avail. On 17.05.2022, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Visakhapatnam Division (Respondent No.6) issued an order of punishment, whereby the applicant was removed from service but it was mentioned in the punishment order that such removal should not be treated as disqualification for future employment under the Government (Annexure A/10).
The applicant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority on 25.05.2022 (Annexure A/11), which was rejected vide order dated 28.07.2022 (Annexure A/13). Hence this O.A.
3. During the course of hearing Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the impugned charge sheet, enquiry proceedings enquiry report, order of punishment and order of the Appellate Authority are bad in law and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the Respondent No.5 i.e. the Senior Manager, Mail Motor Services Department of Posts, Kolkata being his Disciplinary Authority had issued charge sheet against him and as per rules, only the appointing authority/disciplinary authority can issue charge sheet or impose punishment on the charged official, but in this case the punishment order was issued by the Respondent No.6 who is not the appointing or disciplinary authority of the Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.04 14:23:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA 350.1639 of 2022 applicant, therefore, the punishment order is liable to be quashed. According to the Learned Counsel for the applicant, in no criminal case, the applicant was held guilty and no order of conviction/arrest was issued against him, therefore, it was not justified act on the part of the respondents to remove him from service on the basis of such criminal cases.
4. Respondents have refuted the claim of the applicant by filing written reply to the O.A. Relying on the reply the Learned Counsel for the respondents has tried to impress upon the court in the following manner:-
a) The applicant submitted the duly signed Attestation Form to the department on 01.04.2016, wherein he has not noted anything about the court cases against him. He simply stated that he was never convicted by the Court of Law and no case is pending against him in any Court of Law at the time of submitting the Attestation Form.
b) According to the respondents, the applicant had wilfully given such statement at the time of submitting the Attestation Form. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that entire procedure from initiation of charge sheet to issuance of reasoned and speaking order by the Appellate Authority was completed by obeying the departmental rules and regulations and all co-lateral evidences indicate that the applicant was very much aware about the FIRs and Police Cases, especially when the FIR was lodged against five persons of the same family and Shri Karim Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.04 14:23:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA 350.1639 of 2022 Molla was one amongst them. Therefore, there was no irregularity or illegality in passing the punishment order against the applicant and the O.A. is devoid of any merit.
5. Heard Learned Counsel for both sides and perused the pleadings and materials placed on record.
6. So far as the plea of the applicant regarding passing of punishment order by inappropriate authority is concerned, it is stated by the Appellate Authoirty in Para 6 of the Appellate Order dated 28.07.2022 that "The SSPOs, Visakhapatnam Division has been identified as ad hoc Disciplinary Authority having equal status of the appointing authority of the appellant for this case by the Postal Directorate following Rules of appointment of ad hoc Disciplinary Authority. As such, there is no scope to challenge the appointment of the SSPOs, Visakhapatnam to act as ad hoc Disciplinary Authority in the instant case." Further, the Disciplinary Authority while passing the order of punishment has observed in the first page of the punishment order ( Annexure A/10, Page 87 of O.A.) that he was appointed as ad hoc Disciplinary Authority vide order issued by competent authority vide order dated 11.01.2022. From perusal of the order dated 11.01.2022 (Annexed at page 28 of the Reply), it appears that the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications had delegated the power of the Hon'ble President to Shri N. Somasekhara Rao (Group 'A' officer of STS Cadre) to act as ad hoc Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there was no illegality in acting of Shri N. Somasekhara Rao as Disciplinary Authority in case of the applicant.
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.04 14:23:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA 350.1639 of 2022
7. Further on issue of suppression of facts regarding pendency of criminal case in Attestation Form, it is material to go into the nature of criminal case pending/ disposed against the applicant. We find that the applicant has annexed a copy of the judgment dated 03.01.2019 issued by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Diamond Harbour in respect of GR Case No.659/2012 , TR No.563/2012 (State of West Bengal Vs. Abdul Sahadat Molla and 4 Others) u/s 498A of IPC in P.S. Case Mp/54 dated 02.04.2012, wherein it was ordered as under:-
" that the accused person viz. Abdul Sahadat Molla, Abdul Karim Molla, Khadija Bibi, Nur Nabi Molla and Abdul Ali Molla are found not guilty of the offences under sections 498A IPC and are acquitted under section 248(1) criminal procedure Code."
Therefore, it is evident that the applicant was honourably acquitted of the charge u/s498 A of IPC.
So far as the second criminal case i.e. Case no.139/2012 dated 16.07.2012 u/s 147, 148, 149, 325, 326, 307, 379, 354 and 506 of IPC is concerned, the same is at trial stage and the applicant is not convicted. According to the applicant, it is not a bar for appointment in public service. In this regard, Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of West Bengal & Others vs. Mitul Kumar Jana reported in 2023 14 SCC 719, wherein in para 15, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
"15. In view of the discussion made herein above, we confirm the findings of the Tribunal and the High Court on the issue of suppression of material information. As the respondent was not involved in Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.04 14:23:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA 350.1639 of 2022 heinous/serious offence or any offence involving moral turpitude, and the fact that in the said criminal case he has been honourably acquitted, therefore, modifying the order of the High Court, we direct the appellant to consider the case of the respondent and issue order of appointment to the post of constable in West Bengal Police Force within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of this order."
8. In the instant case, there appears a clear case of suppression of facts in the Attestation Form regarding pendency of criminal case against the applicant. However, submission of the Learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is honourably acquitted in criminal case under Section 498 A of IPC, P.S. Case No.54 of 2012 and in another case i.e. Case No.139/2012, he is not convicted and the offence is trivial in nature, therefore, he is eligible for consideration for appointment, has a force.
9. Accordingly, the impugned appellate order dated 28.07.2022 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to consider the matter afresh in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mitul Kumar Jana (Supra) and pass a fresh order on the appeal of the applicant, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. With the above observations and directions, the O.A. stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Rajnish Kumar Rai) (Anindo Majumdar)
Judicial Member Administrative Member
sb
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.04 14:23:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0