IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.23125 OF 2019 (S-CAT) BETWEEN:
1. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT BENGALURU SOUTH DIVISION BENGALURU – 560 041 2. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES OFFICE OF THE POST MASTER GENERAL BENGALURU HEAD QUARTERS REGION BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN NEW DELHI – 110 001.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI B.PRAMOD, ADVOCATE) AND:
M. SELVAKUMAR S/O MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS WAS WORKING AS A POSTMAN CHAMARAJPET HO BENGALURU – 560 018.
(BY SRI SHEKAR.L.S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R) …RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2018 ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE IN O.A.NO.170/00035/2018 AND DECLARE IT TO BE ILLEGAL AND UNTENABLE AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The respondent in O.A.No.170/00035/2018 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (‘the Tribunal’ for short) has come up in these petitions impugning the order dated 14.11.2018, on the ground that the same is erroneous and calls for interference of this Court.
2. The aforesaid application was filed by the sole respondent herein in challenge to the order dated 23.05.2016 passed by the first petitioner vide Annexure-A4, which was later modified in enhancing the punishment awarded to the respondent from reduction of two increments to compulsory retirement by order dated 06.12.2017 vide Annexure-A5 passed by the second petitioner. The Tribunal while considering the orders impugned felt that the order passed by the second petitioner vide Annexure-A5 dated 06.12.2017 is harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the respondent and accordingly, set aside the order of the second petitioner while confirming the order of the first petitioner so far as it pertains to reduction of two increments which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition.
3. Before considering the order impugned, the facts are required to be considered. The material on record would indicate that the respondent herein was working as Postman in Chickpet Post Office, where he is said to have deliberately not delivered more than 40% of the ordinary mails which were entrusted to him for delivery. Hence, an enquiry was initiated against him. In the enquiry proceedings, the Officer has observed that nearly 40% of the mails that were entrusted to the respondent herein not being delivered by him and that the department has failed to establish his inefficiency in doing his job and accordingly, gave a finding that the delinquent employee namely, the respondent herein is not guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. However, when the said report was placed before the Disciplinary Authority, he has put up a note of descent and discussed at length about the consequences of the respondent in not doing his job diligently and felt that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is required to be overlooked and on the basis of other material available on record, the punishment of withholding of two increments cumulatively was required to be ordered and accordingly, passed an order on 23.05.2016 withholding two increments cumulatively to the respondent herein which was the subject matter of challenge before the Appellate Authority by the respondent.
4. However, when the matter was taken up before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority was of the considered opinion that the misconduct of the delinquent employee namely, the respondent being established, withholding of two increments is too meager punishment and felt that he should be compulsorily retired from service and accordingly, by order dated 06.12.2017 ordered for his compulsory retirement. It is seen that the said order is also given effect to and the respondent is not working in the post of Postman in any of the post office of the petitioners herein.
5. However, subsequently, he filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 23.05.2016 as well as the order of the Appellate Authority dated 06.12.2017, which are at Annexures – A4 and A5 respectively before the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal on re-appreciation of the same felt that the order passed by the Appellate Authority in compulsorily retiring the respondent herein is highly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and accordingly, set aside the same and consequently, confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority in reducing two increments to the respondent cumulatively. The same is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
6. When the order impugned is looked into, it is clearly seen that the Tribunal has not appreciated the material available on record properly. Admittedly, the respondent herein was appointed as a Postman and he was posted to Chickpet Post Office, which is a commercial hub. The mails which are received by him for delivering to various recipients involve matters pertaining to serious commercial implications and as well as many important communications which are required to be delivered to the recipients on time bound basis. It is seen that dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent is not just delivering the mails belatedly, but it is non-delivering of nearly 40% of the items which are posted by various persons to the residents within the delivery area.
7. It is not in dispute that the postal service is a concessional service which is managed by the State by permitting using of subsidized funds where writing of letters and sending of letters cost about Rs.5/- to the person who is posting it. The process of delivering the same by the Department would cost at least three to four times value of such cost which is subsidized only to ensure that the communication system is intact and the responsibility of delivering the same was on the shoulders of the respondent, which he has failed to do and there is absolutely no reason coming forth as to why he did not discharge his duties diligently during the period of five months when he was working there.
8. In the aforesaid background, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Appellate Authority in ordering compulsory retirement to the respondent from the post of Postman appears to be just and proper and accordingly, the order dated 14.11.2018 passed in O.A.No.170/00035/2018 by the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside and consequently, the order of compulsory retirement passed by the Appellate Authority dated 06.12.2017 vide Annexure-A5 in the application before the Tribunal is hereby confirmed.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE CA