IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL WRIT PETITION NO.53652/2016 (S-CAT) BETWEEN:
H.SATHISH S/O HONNA GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS POSTMAN, (NOW POSTED AT PAVAGADA) HEAD POST OFFICE TUMKUR – 572 101 AND RESIDING AT NO.PB-4/5 POSTAL QUARTERS SHETTIHALLI MAIN ROAD TUMKUR ...PETITIONER (BY SRI MANJUNATHA .P, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF POSTS DAK BHAVAN NEW DELHI – 110 001 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE TUMKUR DIVISION TUMKUR – 572 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.JAYAKARA SHETTY, CGC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A.NO.170/1351/2015 DATED 29.8.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ORDER OF R2 DATED 15.9.2015.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, H.G.RAMESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 29.08.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore whereby his application No.170/01351/2015 has been dismissed. In the said application, the petitioner sought for setting aside the communication/order dated 15.09.2015 of respondent No.2 declining to stay further proceedings in the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner.
2. The aforesaid departmental inquiry is initiated against the petitioner to inquire into the following charges framed against him:
“ ARTICLE I That the said Sri H.Sathish while functioning as Postman, Maralur SO, Tumkur-572 105 under Tumkur HO, during the period from 10.12.2012 to 07.12.2013, has shown the eMO No.050451131010939266 dated 10.10.2013 booked at Tumkur HO for Rs.500/- payable to Sri. Pyaru Sab s/o Peer Khan, Veerasagara, Melekote road, Kasaba, Tumkur – 572 105 as paid to the payee on 06.11.2013 eventhough the payee died on 07.10.2013, in violation of Rule 127(1), 127(3), 127(4) and 127(5) of Postal Manual Volume VI (Part III Sixth Edition) and thereby alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) of CCS Conduct Rules 1964.
ARTICLE II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Sri. H.Sathish has shown the below mentioned eMOs booked at Tumkur HO as paid to the payee after the death of the payee on 02.10.2012, in violation of Rule 127(1), 127(3), 127(4) and 127(5) of Postal Manual Volume VI (Part III Sixth Edition) and thereby alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) of CCS Conduct Rules 1964.
Ghouse s/o Mohmed Haneef, 3rd cross, Sadashi vanag ara, Tumkur -572101 HO 00 ARTICLE III That the said Sri. H.Sathish while functioning as Postman, Tumkur HO, Tumkur-572 101, during the period from 22.01.2004 to 17.10.2014, has shown the eMO No.050451140211070883 dated 11.02.2014 booked at Tumkur HO for Rs.500/- payable to Smt. Fathima Bee w/o Vazeed Ahmed, 15th cross, PH Colony, Tumkur as paid to the payee on 19.02.2014 eventhough the payee died on 06.02.2014, in violation of Rule 127(1),127(3),127(4) and 127(5) of Postal Manual Volume VI (Part III Sixth Edition) and thereby alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) of CCS Conduct Rules 1964.”
3. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal on a detailed consideration of the matter has dismissed the petitioner’s application with the following reasoning:
“8. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by either side. From the available records, it appears that the payments have been shown as made to the payees, when they had already died. According to the applicant, he used to make the payments to their relatives always as old age pensioners are illiterates and they were assisted by the sons and daughters, as the case may be. However, there is no reason for his not meeting the payees who are male and cannot raise any privacy issue. Since the payment was made to the persons after their death, the department held that making payment without being satisfied the payees’ identity is in violation of relevant provisions laid down by the department and, therefore, initiated the departmental proceedings. The applicant has contended that since he has filed criminal case against the individuals who had received the money, the departmental proceedings should be held back till the criminal proceeding is finalized.
9. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. In this case, the applicant has filed criminal case against private individuals and this cannot be a ground to postpone the departmental proceeding which according to respondents is to ascertain violation of procedures/rules. Moreover, in case the applicant is of the view that he is not committed any mistake/error, then he can definitely present his case before the enquiring authority to justify his stand. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no justifiable ground to withhold the disciplinary proceedings only because the applicant has filed a criminal case against other private individuals.
10. On taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any justification or merit in the contention made by the applicant for withholding the departmental proceedings till completion of the criminal case filed by him against private persons. Therefore, we hold that the present O.A. is devoid of any merit and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed with no order as to costs.”
4. We find no error in the aforesaid reasoning of the Tribunal to warrant interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE KSR Sd/- JUDGE