R. V. RAVEENDRAN J.

( 1 ) THE respondent is working as Sub-Post Master in the Department of posts. A charge memo dated 12-6-1996 was issued to him by the disciplinary authority (first petitioner) containing three charges. Respondent denied the charges. No action was taken for nearly three years. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority issued an order dated 16-3-1999, dropping the proceedings. The said order reads thus: whereas, disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 were initiated against Sri V. B. Ravindranathan, postal Assistant, Wilson Garden S. O. , Bangalore - 560 027 vide Memo of even number dated 12-6-1996. And whereas, Sri G. N. Puthuraya, then Deputy SPOs, Bangalore south Division, the prime witness in the case is expired. Now, therefore, the undersigned drops the said proceedings without prejudice to further action which may be considered in the case.

( 2 ) MORE than four years thereafter, another charge memo dated 29-9-2000 was issued by the disciplinary authority to the respondent in regard to the very same charges, which were dropped by order dated 16-3-1999. Feeling aggrieved, respondent presented an appeal dated 12-10-2000 to the Director of Postal Services (second respondent) contending that a second charge memo cannot be issued in regard to the very same charges, and seeking a direction to the disciplinary authority not to proceed with the matter. The said representation/appeal was rejected by communication dated 10-11-2000 on the ground that there was no provision for an appeal against a charge memo. Thereafter, by order dated 17-8-2001, the disciplinary authority appointed an Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges.

( 3 ) THE respondent filed O. A No. 1151 of 2001 before the Central administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, for quashing the charge memo dated 29-9-2000 and seeking a direction to the petitioners to withdraw the charges and stop the enquiry forthwith. The Tribunal by order dated 13-6-2002, allowed the application and quashed the second enquiry initiated as per charge memo dated 29-9-2000. Feeling aggrieved, the department has filed this petition.

( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that the charges I and II in the charge memo dated 12-6-1996 and charges I and II in the charge memo dated 29-9-2000 are the same. Charge in in the charge memo dated 29-9-2000 is not a new charge, but a consequential charge related to charge II. For convenience, we extract below relevant portions of the said charges: charges levelled in Charge Memo dated 12-6-1996 charges levelled in Charge Memo dated 29-9-2000 article I That the said Sri V. B. Ravindranathan. . . . misbehaved with Sri Vageesh Varada, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Bangalore South, Sub-Division II, Bangalore on 10-2-1996 at Koramangala S. O. and thereby acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant in contravention of Rule 3 (l) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article I That the said Sri V. B. Ravindranathan. . . . misbehaved with Sri Vageesh Varada, then ASPOs II, Bangalore South, Sub-Division, Bangalore - 560 041 on 10-2-1996 at Koramangala S. O. and thereby acted in a manner of unbecoming of a Government servant and violated conditions laid down in Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article II That the said Sri V. B. Ravindranathan. . . . on 7-3-1996 behaved discourteously with Sri G. N. Puthuraya, Deputy SPOs, Bangalore South Division, Bangalore violating Rule 3 (A) (a) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and on 8-3-1996 confined Sri G. N. Puthuraya in a room inside the SJMC P. O. premises and thereby acted in the manner unbecoming of a Government servant in contravention of Rule 3 (l) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article II That the said Sri V. B. Ravindranathan. . . . behaved discourteously with late G. N. Puthuraya, then Deputy SPOs, Bangalore South Division, Bangalore - 560 041 on 7-3-1996, refused to carry out the orders of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bangalor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document