IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO.20163 OF 2014 [S-CAT] BETWEEN:
SRI. J.CHANNABASAPPA, SON OF KOTRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS POSTAL ASSISTANT, JAGALURU POST OFFICE, UNDER DAVANAGERE H.O., RESIDING AT JAGALURU, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. … PETITIONER [BY SRI. H.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE] AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001.
2. THE POST MASTER GENERAL, SOUTH KARNATAKA REGION, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICERS, CHITRADURGA DIVISION, CHITRADURGA-577 501. … RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. C.SHASHIKANTHA, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL] * * * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE BY QUASHING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.8 OF 2013 DATED 05.03.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-N BY ISSUING THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as a Sub-Post Master in Asagodu Post Office in Chitradurga Division, he was placed under suspension from 05.08.2010 on the ground of disciplinary action. On 17.02.2011, the suspension was revoked. Thereafter, a Memorandum dated 25/31.01.2011 was issued framing three charges against him.
2. The petitioner submitted his written statement by denying the charges. Being dissatisfied with the same, an enquiry was initiated. He participated in the said enquiry. The charges were held proved. He was imposed with a penalty of reducing the pay by three stages for a period of three years without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, he filed an appeal, which was rejected. Questioning the same, he filed the instant original application before the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the same was rejected. Hence, this petition.
3. Sri. H.Basava Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the findings of the Enquiry Officer could be sustained. That the evidence led in by the respondents is insufficient to prove the charges. Therefore, the Enquiry Report requires to be set aside.
4. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. He submits that ample evidence have been led in. The charges are held to be proved. That the petitioner has indulged in acts of misconduct for which he has been awarded an appropriate punishment. Hence, no interference is called for.
5. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that based on the evidence led in by the petitioner as well as the respondents, the charges have been proved. Three charges were framed against the petitioner. The first charge is that he has not attended the ‘mela’ organized by the respondents and has not behaved in a desired manner. The second charge is that he was in the habit of closing the office much earlier to the scheduled time. The third charge is that he was not residing in the quarters attached to the post office.
6. On considering the evidence, the Enquiry Officer has rightly come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. The evidence led in by the respondents is just and proper. We find no good ground to interfere with the Enquiry Report. The same is based on the oral as well as the material evidence. However, so far as the punishment is concerned, the petitioner has been imposed with a punishment of reduction of pay by three stages for a period of three years without cumulative effect. We are of the considered view that the punishment imposed is highly disproportionate. Keeping in mind the charges levelled and the evidence led in, the punishment imposed is excessive and requires to be modified. Accordingly, the petitioner is imposed with the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect. This in our view would meet the ends of justice.
7. It is also submitted that the petitioner has retired from service in the year 2017. Therefore, in view of the fact’s and circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is modified. The finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is upheld. The punishment imposed is modified to the extent of imposing the punishment of reducing the pay of the petitioner by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The remaining order of the Tribunal is sustained. The writ petition is accordingly disposed off.
8. It is needless to state that the respondents shall re-compute the amount due to the petitioner and settle the same at the earliest.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Ksm*