Union Of India v. The Registrar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.07.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA W.P. No.5211 OF 2018 1 Union of India Rep. by the postmaster General Chennai City Region Chennai 2 2 Director of Postal Services O/o Postmaster General Chennai City Region Chennai 2 3 Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Chennai City South Div.
Chennai 17 ...
Petitioners Vs 1 The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai Bench Chennai 104 2 S. John Shanjeevi ...
Respondents Writ Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent and quash the order passed by the first respondent in O.A. No. 1247 of 2013 dated 30.08.2016. For petitioner : Mr.C.V.Ramachandramoorthy For 2nd Respondent : Mr.M.S.Velusamy
O R D E R
This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 30 August 2016 in O.A.No.1247 of 2013 whereby and whereunder, the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the petitioners to consider the representation submitted by the 2nd respondent for modification of the punishment. While directing consideration of the representation, the Tribunal indicated that
the punishment was disproportionate to the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have come up with this Writ Petition.
2. The 2nd respondent who was functioning as a Postmaster at Perungudi Post Office, was transferred and posted as Public Relation Inspector, R.A.Puram. While working as the Public Relation Inspector, he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, a charge memo was issued to him on allegation that the amount collected after delivering V.P. Articles were not accounted for. The Enquiry Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority submitted a report indicating that the charges were proved. The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the enquiry report, imposed the punishment of removal from service. It was the said order which was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal found that the charge memo was issued on 30 March 2012. The 2nd respondent deposited the amount immediately thereafter. The enquiry commenced on 30 March 2012 and it was completed on 24 April 2012. Thereafter, punishment was imposed.
4. The 2nd respondent has taken up a specific contention before the Appellate Authority as well as before the Central Administrative Tribunal that he was assured that minimum punishment alone would be imposed and the same made him to admit the charges. It is also very clear from the dates and events that the enquiry was concluded within a few days, taking into account the stand taken by the 2nd respondent that he was not disputing the charges.
5. The 2nd respondent immediately after imposing the punishment, cited the attention of the Appellate Authority that there was an assurance given to him that a minimum punishment would be given, taking into account the fact that he would be attaining the age of superannuation within a few days. This material fact appears to have been weighed with the Tribunal to direct the petitioners to reconsider the punishment. The positive finding given by the Tribunal that the punishment is disproportionate alone made the petitioners to file this Writ Petition.
6. We are informed that pursuant to the liberty granted by the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent submitted a comprehensive representation. It is for the petitioners to consider the said representation on merits.
7. We set aside the positive order passed by the Tribunal. We make it clear that the issue should be considered by the petitioners without in any way being influenced by the positive
statement made by the Tribunal. The petitioners should take into account the dates and events relating to the enquiry and the contention taken by the 2nd respondent that he was made to believe that a minimum punishment would be given as he was attaining the age of superannuation very shortly. The representation should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.6379 of 2018 is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar tar To 1 The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai 104.
2 The postmaster General Chennai City Region Union of India Chennai 2.
2 Director of Postal Services O/o Postmaster General Chennai City Region Chennai 2.
3 Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Chennai City South Div.
Chennai 17.
+1cc to Mr.C.V.Ramachandramurthy, Advocate Sr.63139 +1c to Mr.M.S.Velusamy, Advocate Sr.62226 W.P. No.5211 OF 2018 pp[co] srg 12/09/2019