SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Ker) 286

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ.
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
P.K.Geetha, D/o.Late.M.K.Madhavan Nair – Respondent
OP (CAT) No. 81 of 2021
Decided on : 22-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MANU S., Adv
For the Respondent: SHAFIK M.A. RAMAKRISHNAN D. P.V.SALEEM

Point of Law : It is well settled that an order of suspension from service comes to an end by order of dismissal and relationship of master and servant is extinguished.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 226 & 227, 311, 311(2) – CCS (CCA) Rules - Rule 14, 24, 27(2)(c)(ii), 27, 27(2)(c), 29, 10, 10(1) - Suspension from Service - Respondent in O.P will be referred for short as ‘original applicant/applicant' - Applicant, while holding the post of Postal Assistant under Postal Department, was served with Annexure-A4 memo of charges issued by 3rd respondent Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Calicut Division (disciplinary authority), raising certain allegations therein - Whether applicant could be reinstated in service and O.A may be decided accordingly - Whether earlier he was under suspension or not is deemed to have been under suspension by operation of law - Whether impugned penalty order is to be confirmed or whether it is to be enhanced or reduced or whether penalty is to be set aside - It is well settled that an order of suspension from service comes to an end by order of dismissal and relationship of master and servant is extinguished (Para 13).

Findings of Court

Petitioner was never suspended from service and Appellate Authority, while passing Annexure-A8 appellate order, has not found, on basis of existence of relevant materials, that it is necessary to keep employee under suspension from service and has not given any liberty to Disciplinary Authority, to do so - In light of above legal position, it is only to be held that applicant has made out a strong prima facie case for reinstatement, pending finalisation of disciplinary proceedings, as operation of legal fiction under Rule 10(3) will not apply in facts of this case - Reinstatement will be subject to final result of O.A. Other issues of pay and allowances, etc, pursuant to such reinstatement, will also be subject to final result of O.A. Tribunal may deal with all such issues in OA and may decide on legality and correctness of proceedings impugned in O.A, as in Annexure-A14 issued by R2, in light of above legal position in matter - So impugned order of Tribunal does not deserve any interference in this O.P.

Result : Petition disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Alexander Thomas, J.

The prayers in the instant Original Petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows:

    “…....to set aside Ext.P3 Interim Order in OA No.180/00329/2021 dated 20.08.2021 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in the interest of justice. Sufficient time for completion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent may kindly be granted.”

2. Heard Sri.S.Manu, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the petitioners in the OP/respondents in the OA and Sri.M.A.Shafik, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the OP/ the sole respondent in the O.A.

3. The petitioners in the OP are the respondents in the O.A and the respondent in the OP is the applicant in the O.A.

4. The prayers in the instant Ext.P1 Original Application, O.A.No.329 of 2021 filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are as follows:

    “(i) To call for the records leading to the issue of Annexures A-1 to A18 and to quash the A-1, A-2 & A-3, in the interest of justice;

(ii) To direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant back in service with all consequential benefits including the arrears of pay and allowances as if the applicant had not been compulsorily retired from service;

(iii) To pass such other orders or directions as deemed just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case; and

(iv) To award costs of and incidental to this application.”

5. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P3 order dated 20.08.2021, directing that, in view of Annexure-A8 appellate order, the respondents shall reinstate the applicant in service, before further proceeding with the disciplinary enquiry, as ordered in Annexure-A8, is effectuated and that this would be subject to the final result of the O.A.

6. The respondent in the O.P will be referred for short as 'the original applicant/applicant'. The applicant, while holding the post of Postal Assistant under the Postal Department, was served with Annexure-A4 memo of charges dated 06.06.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Calicut Division (disciplinary authority), raising certain allegations therein. The applicant submitted her statement of defence and thereafter, regular enquiry for major penalty proceedings in terms of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules was initiated and completed. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent disciplinary authority has issued the impugned Annexure-A6 penalty order dated 30.07.2020, ordering that the applicant shall stand compulsorily retired from service as a punishment. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred Annexure-A7 statutory appeal in terms of Rule 24 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, before the 2nd respondent Director of Postal Services. The 2nd respondent appellate authority has issued Annexure-A8 appellate order dated 25.11.2020, holding that there is illegality and impropriety in the issuance of the impugned Annexure-A6 penalty order to the extent that the relevancy of additional defence do0cuments and additional defence witnesses has not been properly examined by the disciplinary authority and that therefore, the matter would require reconsideration. Hence, the appellate authority has remitted the matter to the 3rd respondent disciplinary authority, in terms of Annexure-A8 order, to reconsider the matter from the stage of deciding the relevancy of additional defence document and additional defence witnesses required by the applicant and then pass fresh orders in the disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with law. The operative portion of Annexure-A8 appellate order dated 25.11.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent Director of Postal Services, reads as follows:

    “I, Manoj Kumar, Director of Postal Services, Northern Region, hereby remit the case back to the disciplinary authority for de-novo proceedings from the stage of deciding relevancy of additional defence documents and witness demanded by th

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                Judicial Analysis

                SupremeToday

                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                Please visit our Training & Support
                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top