Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN & P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, JJ.
V. Bhoopathy – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices & Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 26664 of 2014 & M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 01-04-2015
CCS Rules, 1965 - Rule 19 – Indian Penal Code - Sections 381, 419, 467 468, 420 r/w 511 – Dishonor of cheques - Appeal against conviction – First Information Report - Submissions made by counsel for petitioner and by Senior Central Government Standing Counsel were Heard Impugned order and other materials available in form of typed set of papers were also perused and taken into consideration - Petitioner was appointed as on compassionate grounds - While he was working at Chet pet Post Office Chennai complaints were received from three alleging that demand drafts and cheques sent along with letters by Registered post meant for complainants were not properly and promptly delivered and making some entries cheques and demand drafts were taken out manipulated and encased - On enquiry by Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices Tamil Nadu Circle Chennai it was found that Registered letters kept in deposit in wooden chest of Chet pet Post office by Registration Delivery Postal Assistant with lock and key were taken out by applicant who was night watchman after opening wooden chest during night hours using duplicate key and exchanged cheques and demand drafts - Pursuant to said inspection petitioner was placed under suspension and matter was reported to police based on which a criminal case in First Information Report was registered for an offence under Section 381 IPC - Charge-sheet filed in said case by Central Crime Branch before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was taken on file – Held, In said case decided by Division Bench of Delhi High Court though it was held that in view of possibility of delinquent raising a grievance that he could not be forced to disclose his defense in departmental proceedings as it would definitely affect his interest and defense in criminal case department was justified in waiting for outcome of criminal proceedings particulars regarding date on which criminal proceedings before criminal court ended and time gap between date of judgment of criminal court and date of issuance of charge memo in departmental proceedings are not found mentioned - Even assuming that department was waiting for result of criminal trial as delinquent could not be compelled to disclose his defense in departmental proceedings can be taken as an acceptable explanation for delay such an explanation will take care of delay up to date of pronouncement of judgment by trial court in criminal case waiting for result of appeal or revision shall not provide an acceptable explanation for delay in initiation of departmental proceedings for simple reason that possibility of delinquent taking a stand that plea of defense to be taken by him in departmental proceedings will prejudice him in criminal trial would no longer exists - In case on hand criminal trial before trial court ended and a judgment was pronounced - Even for taking action under Rule 19 of CCS CCA Rules 1965 department took more than four years from date of conviction by trial court - There was a gap of more judgment of trial court and judgment of appellate court - There was no explanation for said delay - Even after judgment of appellate court it took months - For that also there is no explanation - After judgment of appellate court department chose to proceed against him under Rule 19 of CCS CCA Rules, 1965 - Of course non-initiation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 till his acquittal in Criminal Revision Case by High Court cannot be found fault with - However there is absolutely no explanation for delay caused from - Only inference that can be drawn from it shall be that department had taken a decision to waive initiation of proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS CCA Rules, 1965 on same set of facts based on which prosecution was launched and on other hand it took a decision to go by finding of criminal court - Writ petition is allowed
P.R. Shivakumar, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai dated 24.09.2014 made in O.A.No.1807 of 2013 dismissing the said original application filed by the writ petitioner.
2. The submissions made by Mr.R.Malaichamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mrs.R.Maheswari, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel were heard. The impugned order and the other materials available in the form of typed set of papers were also perused and taken into consideration.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar (night duty) Group-D (NTC) cadre on compassionate grounds on 14.11.1984. While he was working at the Chetpet Post Office, Chennai complaints were received from three persons on 29.11.1997, 04.12.1997 and 05.12.1997 alleging that demand drafts and cheques sent along with the letters by Registered post meant for complainants were not properly and promptly delivered and making some entries, the cheques and demand drafts were taken out, manipulated and encashed. On enquiry by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (Vigilance), Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai, it was found that the Registered letters kept in deposit in wooden chest of Chetpet Post office by the Registration Delivery Postal Assistant with lock and key were taken out by the applicant, who was the chowkidar/night watchman, after opening the wooden chest, during night hours using duplicate key and exchanged the cheques and demand drafts. Pursuant to the said inspection, the petitioner was placed under suspension and the matter was reported to the police, based on which a criminal case in FIR No.327/1998 was registered for an offence under Section 381 IPC. The charge-sheet filed in the said case by the Central Crime Branch before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was taken on file as C.C.no.8554/2000.
4. Pending disposal of the criminal case, the petitioner was reinstated in service by order dated 07.09.2001. However after he was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 381, 419, 467 r/w 468, 420 r/w 511 IPC, convicted and sentenced by the trial court by judgment dated 13.12.2007 and after the same was confirmed by the Sessions Judge on 22.07.2010 in C.A.No.29 of 2008, a show cause notice was issued and the petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 22.02.2012, referring to the provisions of Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. However, the High Court, on revision, set aside the conviction made and sentence imposed by the trial court that had been confirmed by the appellate court. Such an order came to be passed in Crl.R.C.No.1145/2010 on 27.03.2012. Subsequently, he was reinstated as MTS at Washermenpet Sub Office on 04.12.2012 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Memo No.F1/1-1/97-98(Vol IV) dated 18.12.2013 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
5. Contending that the criminal prosecution launched on the same facts ultimately ended in his acquittal and hence the Department could not take any disciplinary action in respect of the incident that took place nearly 15 years before the issue of the charge memo; that it would be difficult for him to defend the case in the department proceedings initiated at such distance of time; that on the ground of delay and also on the ground that the criminal case on the very same facts ended in acquittal, the departmental proceedings could not be sustained and that hence the same got to be quashed, the writ petitioner filed the above said original application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing, rejected his plea holding that the acquittal in the criminal case shall not be a bar for proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings and that the delay on the part of the Department in initiation of the departmental proceedings could be justified on the ground that he had been initially dismissed from service on his conviction by the criminal court and reinstated only on 04.12.2012 when the convict
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
