Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. MANIKUMAR, N. AUTHINATHAN, JJ.
Y.Prabakaran - Petitioner
Vs
Union of India, Rep. by the Postmaster General, Chennai – Respondent
W.P.No.24080 of 2016
Decided on : 24-10-2016
Certiorarified Mandamus - Postal Department Employee - Rules 121(2), 10(1) of Branch Office Rules, Rule 21 of GDS (C&E) Rules 2001 - The court discussed the charges against the petitioner, the admission of charges, the disciplinary proceedings, and the quantum of punishment. Key legal provisions such as Rules 121(2), 10(1) of Branch Office Rules, and Rule 21 of GDS (C&E) Rules 2001 were interpreted and applied in determining the guilt and imposing the punishment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Postal Department employee, was charged with misappropriation of money orders and subsequently removed from service. The court analyzed the admission of charges, disciplinary proceedings, and the quantum of punishment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law, and the petitioner made voluntary admission of all charges. The court also held that the punishment of removal from service was proportionate to the misconduct.
Issues: The issues involved the admission of charges, procedural regularity of the disciplinary proceedings, and the proportionality of the punishment imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the voluntary admission of charges by the petitioner, the procedural regularity of the disciplinary proceedings, and the proportionality of the punishment in relation to the misconduct.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the punishment of removal from service was upheld.
N. AUTHINATHAN, J.
The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the order passed by the fourth respondent/Tribunal, in O.A.No.822 of 2012, dated 04.09.2015 and to quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to re-instate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits.
2. The petitioner herein while working as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer/Mail Carrier (GDS MD/MC), Perattur Branch, Ikkadu Sub Office, Kanchipuram, was served with a charge memo dated 18.07.2011. Four charges were framed against the petitioner and they are:
Article-I
That the said Shri.Y.Prabakaran, while working as GDSMD/MC, Perattur BO a/w Ikkadu SO, did not paid the MO No.8511/1024 dt 07-05-08 of Tiruvallur HO for Rs.400/- which was entrusted to him along with cash for effecting payment to the payee Smt.Pattammal w/o Nagan, Petattur Colony on 24-05-08, but shown as paid to the payee on 24-05-08 in the Post Office records and misappropriated the value of the above money order. Thus it is imputed that the said Shri.Y.Prabakaran GDSMD/MC Petattur BO a/w Ikkadu SO failed to observe the provisions of Rules 121(2) read with preamble note under the head postman in chapter III of Postal Manual Volume VI part III sixth edition and the provisions of Rules 10(1) of Branch Office Rules and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of him under Rule 21 of GDS (C&E) Rules 2001.
Article-II
That the said Shri.Y.Prabakaran, while working as GDSMD/MC, Perattur BO a/w Ikkadu SO, did not paid the MO No.8511/1732 dt 07-05-08 of Tiruvallur HO for Rs.400/- (four hundred only) which was entrusted to him along with cash for effecting payment to the payee, Smt.Kalvi w/o Aruldoss, Perattur on 24-05-08, but shown as paid to the payee on 24-05-08, in the Post Office records and misappropriated the value of the money order. Thus it is imputed that the said Shri.Y.Prabakaran GDSMD/MC Perattur BO a/w Ikkadu SO failed to observe the provisions of Rules 121(2) read with preamble note under the head postman in chapter III of Postal Manual Volume VI part III sixth edition and the provisions of Rules 10(1) of Branch Office Rules and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of him under Rule 21 of GDS (C&E) Rules 2001.
Article-III
That the said Shri.Y.Prabakaran, while working as GDSMD/MC, Perattur BO a/w Ikkadu SO, did not paid the MO No.8510/940 dt 07-05-08 of Tiruvallur HO for Rs.400/- (four hundred only) which was entrusted to him along with cash for effecting payment to the payee Smt.Rajathi w/o Rajendran, Perattur Village on 24-05-08, but shown as paid to the payee on 24-05-08 in the Post Office records and misappropriated the value of the above money order. Thus it is imputed that the said Shri.Y.Prabakaran GDSMD/MC Perattur BO a/w Ikkadu SO failed to observe the provisions of Rules 121(2) read with preamble note under the head postman in chapter III of Postal Manual Volume VI part III sixth edition and the provisions of Rules 10(1) of Branch Office Rules and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of him under Rule 21 of GDS (C&E) Rules 2001.
Article-IV
That the said Shri.Y.Prabakaran, while working as GDSMD/MC, Perattur BO a/w Ikkadu SO, did not paid the MO No.1498-29 dt 08-05-08 of EXPTL SO TN 1790 for Rs.400/- which was entrusted to him along with cash for effecting payment to the payee Smt.Chellammal w/o Durai, Perattur on 22-05-08, but shown as paid to the payee on 22-05-08 in the Post Office records and misappropriated the value of the above money order. Thus it is imputed that the said Shri.Y.Prabakaran GDSMD/MC Perattur BO a/w Ikkadu SO failed to observe the provisions of Rule 121(2) read with preamble note under the head postman in chapter III of Postal Manual Volume VI part III sixth edition and the provisions of Rules 10(1) of Branch Office Rules and thereby failed to maintain
AI
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
