Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Braj Lal Choudhary vs Postal on 11 July, 2024
// 1 // OA/051/01201/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT RANCHI
O.A. No. 051/01201
1201/2019
Date: 11.07.2024
CORAM
HON'BLE SHRI AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER [J]
Braj Lal Choudhary Son of Sri Rama Nand Choudhary, GDS BPM,
Bansbutia BO in Account with Palojori SO under Dumka Postal
Division, Dumka
Dumka-814101.
.......... Applicant.
-Versus
Versus-
1. The Union of India, through the Director General of Post, Ministry of
Communication, Department of Post, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi -
110001.
2. The Chief Post Master General, Jharkhand Circle, Doranda, Ranchi
- 834002.
3. The Director, Postal Service (HQ), Office of the Chief Post Master
General, Jharkhand Circle, Doranda
Doranda,, Ranchi - 834002.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Dumka Postal Division,
Dumka
Dumka-814101.
5. The Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Offices, Jamtara Sub--
Sub-Divisional
Division,Jamtara
Division,Jamtara-815351.
6. Sub-Post Master, Palojori Sub Post Office, Palojori - 814146.
The Sub
......... Respondents.
For Applicant : Shri M.P. Dixit,, Advocate.
For Respondents : Shri Amit Sinha,, Addl. C.G.S.C.
O R D E R (O R A L)
AS PER : AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER [JUDICIAL] [JUDIC
1. By way of present OA under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunal, Act 1985 the applicant has claimed following main relief (as extracted from the OA) reads as under:
under:-
"(i) That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order or of Put-off Duty dated 23.09.2016 as contained in Annexure-A/1 Annexure together with subsequent order dated 18.06.2019 as contained in Annexure A/4 both passed by the Respondent No.4.
(ii) That your Lordships may further be pleased to direct/ command the Respondents dents to grant all consequential benefits in favour of the Applicant treating the entire Put-off Put Duty period as on duty till its revocation for all purposes and the full salary with all benefits minus 25 percent of TRCA be also directed to be paid with statutory sta interest upon the arrears amount.
(iii) Any other relief or reliefs including the cost of the proceeding may be allowed in favour of the applicant."
// 2 // OA/051/01201/2019
FACTS IN BRIEF
2. Briefly stated facts as adumbrated by the applicant is that applicant was initially appointed to the post of GDSBPM on 18.01.2012.
Charge sheet has been filed in one criminal case in the month of 21.12.2015 and the said criminal case is still pending. Applicant received impugned order dated 23.09.2016 (Annexure (Annexure-A/1) A/1) whereby applicant has been placed under Put Put-off off Duty with immediate effect. As criminal case was pending against applicant, applicant has challenged the proceeding of criminal case before the Hon'ble High Court Jharkhand at Ranchi and vide interim order dated 15.12.2016 respon respondents dents were directed not to take any coercive steps against the applicant. The said case is still pending for adjudication and the applicant is continued under suspension. Applicant also filed OA 247/2017 challenging order of Put Put-off off Duty and this Tribunal vide order dated 08.03.2019 directed respondents to pass appropriate order for revoking Put-
Put-
off Duty in light of DG letter dated 26.07.1990. Respondent No.4 has issued order dated 18.06.2019 whereby request of applicant for revoking order of Put-off Duty has been rejected vide order dated 18.06.2019.
3. Per contra respondents have contested the claim of applicant by filing written statement stating that Notification for engage engagement d to the post of GDSBPM at Bansbutia BO in account ccount with Palojori was issued by the SSPOs, S.P. Division, Dumka under memo dated 20.04.2011pursuant to promotion to the postman cadre. Total 62 applications received from the candidates and 15 applications as per merit were sent to the Inspector Post, Jamtara Sub Sub-Division for verification on of certificates attached thereof vide letter dated 27.05.2011. The comparative merit chart and verification report submitted by Inspector Post reveals that candidate at Sl.No.1, Shiv Kumar was absent and his mark sheet was found forged as per marks veri verification fication report of BSSB, Patna vide his letter dated 12.07.2011, candidate at Sl.No.2, Arvind Kumar who secured highest marks in Madhyama examination selected for the post on 21.12.2011 but his selection letter returned back with remark "incomplete address address."
." So far as Sl.No.3 at merit list, the present applicant, was selected for the said post after observing all the formalities vide office memo dated 16.01.2012 and joined on the post of Postman on 18.01.2012.
4. It is also the case of respondents that in meanwhile meanwhile file relating to appointment of at Bansbutia BO under account with Palojori SO // 3 // OA/051/01201/2019 was seized by Inspector of Police CBI, ACB Dhanbad in case No.RC No.RC--
11(A)/2015 11(A)/2015-D D on 04.12.2015 and CBI has submitted charge sheet with the fact that applicant joined on the post of Postman on the basis of forged mark sheet, admit card certificate showing inflated higher 618 marks out of 700 and 88.28% in the Matriculation/Madhyama examination counducted in the year 2006. The applicant used forged admit card, mark sheet and certificate rtificate as genuine for qualifying the merit list for appointment to the said post as recruitment was done solely on the basis of merits. The applicant used forged mark sheet of Madhyama examination equivalent to Matriculation examination. The CBI has pri prima ma facie found that applicant has secured only 180 marks out of 500 in Matriculation examination and passed in 3rd Division in year 2004 vide Roll code No.04681, Roll No.0147 with registration No.0461 No.0461-017-01866 01866 year 2002. Date of birth 03.02.1988 from School Jamtara conducted by Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi and applicant vide fraudulent manner submitted admit ca card rd and mark sheet showing marks 618 out of 700. The certificate issued by Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna in the name of applicant bearing Roll code 4301 with Roll No.135 with registration No.43 No.43-002856 002856 year 2006. It is also the case of respondents that CBI has found during investigation that applicant conspired with the accused person with false marks verification report purported to be issued from BSEB, Patna which was not sent by BSEB, Patna to Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, S.P. Division Dumka. Criminal case against applicant is still pending in Special Court, CBI. Applicant has been rightly kept under Put Put-off off Duty vide office letter dated 23.06.2016 and there is no illegality in the impugned order of Put-off Duty (POD).
SUBMISSIONS
5. Shri M.P. Dixit, ixit, learned counsel for applicant argued that:-
that:
(i) Respondent No.4 issued POD order dated 18.06.2019 and application for revocation rejected on 23.06.2019 whereas no reason for POD has been assigned in order of POD.
(ii) Applicant was appointed as GDS on 18.01.2012 18.01.2012 and in month of November, 2015 one criminal case lodged, chargesheet filed on 21.12.2015. The criminal case is still pending and there is no justification in keeping applicant under POD.
(iii) Applicant filed OA 247 of 2017 challenging order dated 23.09.2016
6 of POD and disposed of vide order dated // 4 // OA/051/01201/2019 08.03.2019 with direction to respondents to take decision on POD in accordance with circular dated 26.07.1990. Respondent No.4 has rejected application to revoke POD without disclosing reason under Rule 12(1)(a)&(b) 12(1)(a)&(b) of Rules 2020.
DISCUSSION
6. Shri Amit Sinha, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for respondents contended that:
that:-
(i) Applicant secured appointment based on forged mark sheet, admit card and certificate showing inflated higher 618 marks out of 700, 88.28% in Matriculation/Madhyama exam in year 2006, merit based selection. The CBI has lodged criminal case against applicant and found that applicant only secured 180 marks out of 500 max. marks in 3rd division in year 2004 from Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi.
(ii) Applicant obtained forged mark sheet from Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna with inflated 618 out of 700 marks. The CBI investigation revealed that applicant in criminal conspiracy with employee of school managed to sent fake verification ion report purported from BSSB, Patna, whereas it was not sent by BSSB to Senior SPOs, S.P.Dn. Dumka. Criminal case is still pending there is strong prima-facie prima facie case of misconduct and delay in criminal trial will not render suspension, POD invalid.
DISCUSSION
7. Heard the parties with consent.
8. This Tribunal has bestowed anxious consideration on the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
// 5 // OA/051/01201/2019
THE ISSUE
9. The short issue arises for consideration "whether the respondents are justified in having continued the applicant under order of Put-off-Duty Put Duty as criminal proceedings in special case in CBI Court is pending related to appointment on forged mark sheet?"
10. To consider and answer the said issue it is necessary to notice the rellevant provision of law i.e. Rule 12 of G.D.S. (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2020 and precedents germane.
A. Applicant has been placed under Put-Off-Duty
Put (in short
POD) invoking Rule 12 of Rules 2020,
2020 for ready reference
reads as:-
12. Put Off Duty:-
(1) The Engaging Authority or any authority to which the Engaging Authority is subordinate or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Government, by general or special order, may put a Sevak off duty;
(a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him/her is contemplated or is pending; or
(b) Where a case against him/her in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial:
Provided that in cases involving fraud or embezzlement, the Sevak Se holding any post specified in the Schedule to these rules may be put off duty by the Inspector of Post Offices or the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices of the Sub-Division, Sub as the case may be, under immediate intimation to the Engaging Authority.
Authority [Emphasis Supplied] [Sub-Rules Rules (2) to (6) are omitted as being not germane for the purposes] B. It is also apposite to reproduce the impugned order dated 23.09.2016, whereby competent authority in exercise of power conferred under sub--Rule(1) of Rule 12 of GDS (C&E) Rules placed applicant, GDS under POD, due to contemplation/pendency of a disciplinary/criminal proceedings. So also to reproduce impugned order dated 18.06.2019, whereby application for revoking order of POD has been rejected vide speaking order or dated 18.06.2019.
(i) Impugned order dated 23.09.2016, Annexure - A/1 of POD reads as: -
// 6 // OA/051/01201/2019
"Annexure - A/1
DEPARTMENT OF POST INDIA
OFFICE OF THE SR. SUPDT. OF POST OFFICES S.P. DIVISION, DUMKA-814101 DUMKA Memo No:-A1-Estt./Put Estt./Put Off Duty Cases/2015-16 Cases/2015 Dumka dt.23.09.2016 Whereas a disciplinary/Criminal proceedings against Sri Brajlal Choudhary Gramin Dak Sevak Br. Post Master Bansbutia Branch Post Office in account with Palojori SO is pending/Contemplated.
Now therefore the undersigned in exercise of Powers Power conferred by Rule 12(1) of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2011, places the said Sri Brajlal Choudhary Gramin Dak Sevak Br. Post Master Bansbutia Branch Post Office in account with Palojori SO under put off duty, with immediate effect.
Sd/-
Sr. Supt. of Post Offices S.P.Dn.Dumka 814101 [Emphasis Supplied]
(ii) Impugned order dated 18.06.2019 rejecting application to remove order of POD reads as under:-
under:
"Annexure - A/4 DEPARTMENT OF POST, INDIA O/o the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, S.P. Division, Dumka-814101 No. A1-CAT CAT Case/Brajlal Choudhary/2017 Dated at Dumka the 18.05.2019 SPEAKING ORDER Sri Brajlal Choudhary GDSBPM Bansbutia BO in a/w a Palojori SO (under vacant post of GDSBPM Bansbutia BO in a/w Palojori SO and joined the post put off duty) was appointed on the on 18.01.2012 A/N. In the mean time the appointment file of the aforesaid GDS was seized by CBI, ACB Dhanbad on 04.12.2015. As per chargesheet submitted by CBI after investigation in case No RC- RC 11(A)/2015-D,the D,the marksheet on the ground he was appointed in the department was found bogus. As such he was kept under put off duty.
ORDER Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the undersigned issue speaking order as follows-
1. No representation from the petitioner was received so far regarding revision of exgratia However petitioner was granted exgratia amount to the tune of 25% of TRCA with effect from the date of put off duty. No enhancement is proposed. 2 His case is subjudice in the court of Law under case No. RC- RC 11(A)/2015-D. D. As per the chargesheet submitted by the CBI in the court of law, his certificate on which he was appointed to the post of BPM Bansbutia BO was found und fake. So the charges are grave and involves moral turpitude as such it is not considered fit to revoke the put off duty. Hence he will remain under put off duty till the outcome of the criminal case, 3 Proceeding against him has been initiated by the CBI C ACB Dhanbad and is pending in the court of law.
Sd/-
Sr. Supt. of Post Offices
S.P.Dn.Dumka 814101
[Emphasis Supplied]
// 7 // OA/051/01201/2019
C. (i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa versus Bimal hanty, (1994) 4 SCC 126 was seisin with case Kumar Mohanty, wherein employee was suspended due to pendency of criminal case and investigation was on. Their Lordships, seisin with similar question "whether the Tribunal was justified by interdicted order of suspension when appointing authority contemplated plated disciplinary proceedings or pending investigation into the crime?" Relevant paragraph 12, 13, 14 & 15 are reproduced as under:-
under:
"12. Aggrieved by the order dated 1-6-2012 1 passed by the Tribunal, the appellants preferred Writ Petition No. 5247 of 2012 201 before the High Court of Delhi which was dismissed vide judgment and order impugned dated 17--9-2012. Hence, this appeal.
13. Ms Indira Jaising, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants has submitted that though the respondent had been under suspension for 14 years but in view of the gravity of the charges against him in the disciplinary proceedings ass well as in the criminal cases, no interference was warranted by the Tribunal or the High Court. In spite of the fact that the charges were framed against the respondent and the domestic enquiry stood completed and very serious charges stood proved againstt the respondent, no punishment order could be passed by the disciplinary authority in view of the fact that the charge-sheet sheet itself has been quashed by the Tribunal on the ground that it had not been approved by the disciplinary authority and in respect off the same, the matter had come to this Court and as explained hereinabove, has impliedly been decided in favour of the respondent vide judgment and order dated 5-9-20131. 5 The respondent has himself filed 27 cases in court and made 62 representations. Almost st all his representations had been considered by the competent authority fully applying its mind and passing detailed orders. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the notings in the files while deciding the case, which is not permissible in law as the said notings cannot be termed as decision of the Government.
14. It was submitted that the scope of judicial review is limited in cases of suspension for the reason that passing of suspension order is of an administrative nature and suspension is not a punishment.
punishm Its purpose is to only forbid the delinquent to work in the office and it is in the exclusive domain of the employer to revoke the suspension order. The Tribunal or the court cannot function as an appellate authority over the decision taken by the disciplinary dis authority in these regards.
15. It was submitted by the learned ASG that in view of the provisions contained in the CVC Regulations which came into force in 2004, the case of suspension of the respondent has, been reviewed from time to time and the t disciplinary authority thought proper to continue the suspension order. The Tribunal and the High Court failed to appreciate that the directions given by the Tribunal in its order dated 16--12-20115, inter alia, to consider the reply to the letter rogatory ry received from the competent authority in Switzerland and the report of the Law Department in case of sanction granted by the competent authority i.e. Hon'ble Finance Minister are matters to be examined by the trial court where the case is pending. The proceedings roceedings had been stayed by the court taking a prima facie view that the courts below had not passed the // 8 // OA/051/01201/2019 order in correct perspective and in that view of the matter, the appellants could not be blamed. Thus, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside."
"
[Emphasis Supplied]
(ii) In Principal J.D. Patil Sangludkar and another versus Ganesh, (2003) 9 SCC 164, Their Lordships seisin with issue whether during pendency of criminal proceedings, where employee facing serious charges and proceedings before competent criminal courts, full subsistence allowance amounting to full salary and allowances can be directed to be given? Relevant paragraph pa 5 reads as:-
5. The provision to increase the rate of subsistence allowance pending suspension after a certain stipulated period is normally envisaged to ensure that the employer or the management concerned does not indefinitely keep an employee under un the pretext of suspension out of his office without completing the inquiry and take advantage of its own lapse or delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings. In a case of the nature where the accused is charged with a serious criminal offence and is facing prosecution for the same at the instance of the police before competent criminal courts and the adjudication in respect of the same by the competent criminal court which is seized of the matter has to be awaited as a matter of necessity, and the service rule does not permit as such, such the court cannot allow full subsistence allowance amounting to full pay and allowances. Unless the respondent could substantiate that in cases of the nature pertaining to him, where for any lapse or delay, the employerr cannot be found fault with at all, the High Court could not have passed such an order of the nature under challenge. We therefore, set aside the order of the High Court on this ground alone.
The respondent will be allowed only 50% of the salary towards his h subsistence allowance, which seems to have been already paid to him."
[Emphasis Supplied]
(iii) In Union of India versus Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, Agg rwal, (2013 16 SCC 147, Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the law on suspension. Relevant paragraph 19, 20, 22, 24, 26 & 27 reads as:-
"19. During suspension, the relationship of master and servant continues between the employer and the employee. However, the employee is forbidden to perform pe his official duties. Thus, a suspension order does not put an end to the service. Suspension means the action of debarring for the time being from a function or privilege or temporary deprivation of working in the office. In certain cases, suspension may cause stigma even after exoneration in the departmental proceedings or acquittal by the criminal court, but it cannot be treated as a punishment even by any stretch of imagination in the strict legal sense. (Vide O.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.)
20. In State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty this Court observed as under: (SCC p. 133, para 13) // 9 // OA/051/01201/2019 "13. ...the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired Into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by the disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider... and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. In other words it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending the witnesses or the delinquent having had an opportunity in office to impede the progress p of the investigation or inquiry, etc.... It would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrarily or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority author also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge."
(emphasis added) (See also R.P. Kapur v. Union of India and Balvantrai Ratilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra.)
21. The power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as vindictive misuse of power. Suspension should be made only in a case where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent employee and the allegations involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct or indiscipline or refusal to carry out the orders of superior authority are there, or there is a strong prima facie case against him, if proved, would ordinarily result resul in reduction in rank, removal or dismissal from service. The authority should also take into account all the available material as to whether in a given case, it is advisable to allow the delinquent to continue to perform his duties in the office or his retention in office is likely to hamper or frustrate the inquiry.
22. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that suspension order can be passed by the competent authority considering the gravity of the alleged misconduct misconduc i.e. serious act of omission or commission and the nature of evidence available. It cannot be actuated by mala fide, arbitrariness, or for ulterior purpose. Effect on public interest due to the employee's continuation in office is also a relevant and determining det factor.
The facts of each case have to be taken into consideration as no formula of universal application can be laid down this regard. However, suspension order should be passed only where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent, delinquent and if the charges stand proved, would ordinarily warrant imposition of major punishment i.e. removal or dismissal from service, or reduction in rank, etc.
23. In Jayrajbhal Jayantibhal Patel v. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel this Court explained: (SCC p. 209, para 18)
18. Having regard to it all, it is manifest that the power of judicial review may not be exercised unless the administrative decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or it shocks the conscience of the court in the sense that it i is in // 10 // OA/051/01201/2019 defiance of logic or moral standards but no standardised formula, universally can be evolved. Each case has to be considered on its own facts, depending upon the authority that exercises the power, the source, the nature or scope of power and the indelible i effects it generates in the operation of law or affects the individual or society. Though judicial restraint, albeit self-recognised, self is the order of the day, yet an administrative decision or action which is based on wholly Irrelevant considerations considerati or material; or excludes from consideration the relevant material; or it is so absurd that no reasonable person could have arrived at it on the given material, may be struck down. In other words, when a court is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse misu of power, and its jurisdiction is invoked, it is incumbent on the court to intervene. It is nevertheless, trite that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision-making decision process and not the decision."
24. Long period of suspension does not make the order of suspension invalid. However, in State of H.P. v. B.C. Thakur, this Court held that where for any reason it is not possible to proceed with the domestic enquiry the delinquent may not be kept under suspension.
25. There cannot be any doubt that the 1965 Rules are a self- self contained code and the order of suspension can be examined in the light of the statutory provisions to determine as to whether the suspension order was justified. Undoubtedly, the delinquent cannot be considered to be any better off after the charge-sheet charge has been filed against him in the court on conclusion of the investigation than his position during the investigation of the case itself. (Vide Union of India v. Udai Narain.)
26. The scope of interference rference by the Court with the order of suspension has been examined by the Court in a large number of cases, particularly in State of M.P. v. Shardul Singh, P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller & Auditor General, ESI v. T. Abdul Razak, Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. 24, Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan, U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Sanjiv Rajan, State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, Prohibition and Excise Deptt. v. L. Srinivasan and Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar Bhola22, Bhol wherein it has been observed that even if a criminal trial or enquiry takes a long time, it is ordinarily not open to the court to interfere in of the competent authority who can always review its order of suspension being an inherent power conferred upon them by the provisions of Article 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and while exercising such a power, the authority can consider the case of an employee for revoking the suspension order, if satisfied that the criminal case pending would be concludeded after an unusual delay for no fault of the employee concerned. Where the charges are baseless, mala fide or vindictive and are framed only to keep the delinquent employee out of job, a case for judicial review is made out. But in a case where no conclusion ion can be arrived at without examining the entire record in question and in order that the disciplinary proceedings may continue unhindered the court may not interfere. In case the court comes to the conclusion that the authority is not proceeding expeditiously expedit as it ought to have been and it results in prolongation of sufferings for the delinquent employee, the court may issue directions. The court may, in case the authority fails to furnish proper explanation for delay in conclusion of the enquiry, direct direc to complete the enquiry within a stipulated period. However, mere delay in conclusion of enquiry or trial cannot be a ground for quashing the suspension order, if the charges are grave in nature. But, whether the employee // 11 // OA/051/01201/2019 should or should not continue in his office during the period of enquiry is a matter to be assessed by the disciplinary authority concerned and ordinarily the court should not interfere with the orders of suspension unless they are passed in mala fide and without there being even a prima facie evidence on record connecting the employee with the misconduct in question.
27. Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out of the mischief range. The purpose is to complete the proceedings unhindered. Suspension is an interim measure in the aid a of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinquent may not gain custody or control of papers or take any advantage of his position. More so, at this stage, it is not desirable that the court may find out as to which version is true when there are claims and counterclaims on factual issues. The court cannot act as if it is an appellate forum de hors the powers of judicial review."
review.
[Emphasis Supplied]
11. Now coming to the facts of present case, principles of service jurisprudence on law on suspension, and sscope cope of judicial review in cases of suspension for reason is of an administrative nature and suspension is not punishment. It is in exclusive domain of employer to revoke the suspension order.
12. Notification for engagement to the post of GDSBPM at Bansbutia BO in account with Palojori was issued by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, S.P. Division, Dumka vide memo dated 20.04.2011.The applications receipt as per merit list were sent to Inspector, Posts, Jamtara Sub-Division Division for verification of the certifi certificates cates submitted by candidates.
The name of applicant finds placed at serial No.3 in communication dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure - R/1 with written statement) for verification of the marks--sheets/certificates.
13. The Inspector Posts, Jamtara Sub-Division Sub submitted d verification report and so far as applicant case in hand, applicant secured merit position at serial No3 in the merit and secured appointment as GDS, Bansbutia BO vide order dated 18.01.2012.
14. The C.B.I. has registered criminal case after investigation R.C.No.11(A)/2015 R.C.No.11(A)/2015-D. D. The charge sheet in the pending criminal case submitted before the trial court. The Documents seized prima prima-facie facie revealed that applicant secured the appointment based on forged and fictitious mark sheet of Madhyama Exam/Matriculation bby y showing bogus mark sheet, admit card and certificate with inflated 618 marks out of 700, 88.28% in year 2006. The selection was passed on forged mark sheet based on inflated marks. Whereas CBI also procured material to show that in fact applicant had sec secured ured 180 marks out of 500 marks in Matriculation exam, // 12 // OA/051/01201/2019 passed in 3rd Division in year 2004 with Roll Code No.04681 with Roll No.0147 with registration No.0461 No.0461-017-01866 01866 and Roll No.147 with date of birth 03.02.1988 from Jharkhand Academic Council but to ge gett selected on merit based selection for GDS procured forged mark sheets with 618 of marks out of 700 marks purported to be issued by Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna, in first division, Roll Code No.4301, Roll No.135 with registration No. 43 43-002856 of yearr 2006. The conduct of applicant in case in my hand prima prima-facie facie of grave misconduct.
15. Another aspect of the case in hand that in the investigation report of CBI, it has come on record that applicant has entered in criminal conspiracy and managed to send bog bogus us verification report purported to be issued by BSSB, Patna whereas it was not at all sent by BSSB, Patna to Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, S.P. Division, Dumka.
16. In view of above material and strong prima-facie prima facie case of misconduct the appointing au authority thority in exercise of statutory power under Sub-Rule(1) Rule(1) of Rule 12 of Rules placed applicant under POD vide impugned order dated 23.09.2016, already extracted herein above and Rule 12 of Rules is itself code on the POD. The reason for suspension is pendenncy of criminal al case before Special CBI Court relates to grave misconduct and moral turpitude turpitude.
17. Applicant challenged impugned order dated 23.09.2016 of POD Annexure Annexure- A/1 in OA No.247 of 2017 and this Tribunal vide order dated 08.03.2019 directed respondents to complete disciplinary proceedings if any and pass order on POD accordance with departmental Circular dated 26.07.1990. The competent authority respondent No.4 has passed impugned order dated 18.06.2019, justified in conso onance with rules already extracted in preceeding paragraph to analyse, found that charge sheet by CBI filed in the special case of bogus mark sheet. The competent authority on application of mind rightly within its power has arrived at conclusion that in case in hand charges are grave in nature, involving moral turpitude and not a fit it case to revoke order of POD. So also I am of the firm opinion that employer/ competent authority has rightly taken decision not to revoke order of POD till outcome of the criminal case initiated by CBI, ACB, Dhanbad pending before the court of law. The competent authority well within it's power rightly placed applicant on POD as there is strong prima prima--
facie case involving grave and moral turpitude charges alleged.
// 13 // OA/051/01201/2019 CONCLUSION
18. In view whereof, impugned orders order 23.09.2016 Annexure -
A/1 & 18.06.2019 Annexure - A/4 of Put-off-Duty Put Duty do not suffers from any legal infirmity so also issued by competent authority within power under Rule 12 of Rules for GDS and no interference is warranted in the present OA and applicant is not entitled for relief sought in the OA as failed to establish infringement of any legal right and comp competent etent authority has passed impugned orders without any legal infirmity in accordance with rules of POD.
19. However, it is made clear that this Tribunal have not expressed any opinion on merit of the case. Entire matter has to bbee dealt on legal evidence and accordance with law.
20. Resultantly, the Original Application being devoid of merit.
21. Original Application is dismissed.
22. There shall be no order as to costs.
23. As a sequel thereof, any pending MA(s), shall also stand disposed of.
Sd/-
[Ajay Pratap Singh] Judicial Member Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench, Patna sks/-