IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.43278 OF 2017 (S-CAT) BETWEEN:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN-573 210.
3. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES ARSIKERE DIVISION, ARSIKERE-560 086.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI B. PRAMOD, CGC) AND:
H. P. MANJUNATHA SON OF PUTTE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, WORKING AS GDS MD, HALEBEEDU SO, HASSAN DIVISION, RESIDING AT: OLD MARKET ROAD, HALEBEEDU-573 121.
(BY SRI A. R. HOLLA, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.11.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU IN O.A.NO.170/00607/2015 AND DECLARE THAT THE SAME IS ILLEGAL.
***** THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The case of the petitioner is that seven charges were levelled against the respondent. On an enquiry being conducted, the Enquiring Officer held that none of the charges levelled against the respondent were proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report of the Enquiring Officer, except with regard to one charge. The finding of the Enquiring Officer on one charge was reversed. The respondent was imposed a penalty of censure.
2. The same was challenged in O.A.No.520 of 2013. By the order dated 11.04.2014, the application was partly allowed, directing the Appellate Authority to consider the representation of the applicant with regard to the period he was ‘Put Off Duty’ (‘POD’ for short). Thereafter, the representation was rejected.
3. Hence, the instant application was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that when a major penalty was sought to be imposed and ultimately only a minor penalty is imposed, the ‘Put Off Duty’ period will be considered as ‘on duty’ and consequently the applicant will be entitled to all benefits. The said order is sought to be challenged by the petitioners - Union of India.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the impugned order is erroneous and interference is called for. That the question of ‘Put Off Duty’ period to be treated as ‘on duty’, is erroneous.
5. The aforesaid question which is sought to be contested herein is already decided by the Tribunal in an earlier round of litigation in Application No.520 of 2013. The very same question was answered by the Tribunal at para–14 of the order wherein it was held that in terms of Rule-FR 54-B, the concerned employee should be paid full pay and allowances, when a minor penalty is imposed for an offence for which a major penalty stands attracted. Therefore, the period of suspension should be treated as ‘on duty’. Since the question which is sought to be challenged by the petitioners herein has been answered by the Tribunal in an earlier round of litigation, the question of rewriting the law does not arise for consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ