Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 289
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. VENUGOPAL, P. RAJAMANICKAM, JJ.
The Union of India rep. By the Postmaster General, Central Region (TN) Department of Posts, Thiruchirappalli & Another - Petitioners
Versus
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Rep. By its Registrar, Madras Bench, Chennai & Another - Respondents
W.P. No. 848 of 2018 & W.M.P. No. 1016 of 2018
Decided On : 13-02-2019
For the Petitioners:C.V. Ramachandramurthy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:N.G.R. Prasad for M/s. Row & Reddy, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings should be fair and reasonable, and charge memos should not be issued contrary to the rules and instructions of relevant authorities.
Headnote:
Bribery - Postal Services - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Passport Act, 1967 - Speed Post Articles containing Passport - [Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, Passports Act, 1967]
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute regarding the delivery of a passport via speed post, with allegations of bribery against a postman and a postmaster. The petitioners sought to challenge the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the proceedings against the second respondent and allowed the original application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tribunal's decision to quash the charge memo and allow the original application was lawful, as the delivery of the passport was in accordance with the instructions of the Passport Office. The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the tribunal's decision.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged bribery, procedural irregularities in initiating a Rule 14 inquiry, and the tribunal's decision to set aside the charge memo and allow the original application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the delivery of the passport was in line with the instructions of the Passport Office, and the charge memo was issued contrary to the Passport Office Rules. It also highlighted the need for fairness and reasonableness in disciplinary proceedings, and the importance of balancing the employer's right to seek explanation with the employee's rights.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the tribunal's decision to set aside the charge memo and allow the original application.
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
1. The Petitioners have preferred the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records on the file of the 1st Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench pertaining to the order passed in O.A.No.1569 of 2013 dated 06.09.2016.
2. Earlier, the 1st Respondent/Tribunal in O.A.No.1569 of 2013 filed by the 2nd Respondent/Applicant on 06.09.2016 at Paragraph No.7 had among other things observed the following:
7.....On perusal of the reply it is seen that since Rajiv Gandhi’s house was surrounded by three streets, his address was noted in Civil Supplies Ration Card, Voter ID and other documents as Mariamman Koil Street, even-though he is a permanent resident of Maniammai Street, M.K. Kottai and from that it is clear that there is some confusion in the address of the Rajiv Gandhi. The contention of the respondents that since N.Rajiv Gandhi has proved his identity the applicant should have exercised his discretion and should have arranged for the delivery of the said article which is addressee specific which is untenable as per the instructions issued for delivering the passport by GOI, Ministry of External Affairs vide letter dated 15.07.2013; wherein it is stated that in order to prevent the passport applicant from procuring additional passport should be delivered to be addressee only and not to be redirected. Admittedly, the said Rajiv Gandhi was not residing in the address printed on the cover and therefore, it is obvious that the complaint given by the uncle of Rajiv Gandhi is of ill motive only to harass the applicant....’
and consequently, set aside the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent [2nd Petitioner in Writ Petition] and allowed the Original Application.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Impugned Order of the 1st Respondent in O.A.No.1569 of 2013 dated 06.09.2016 is a contrary and illegal one, besides the same being opposed to Law.
4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the 1st Respondent/Tribunal should have seen that the allegation against the Postman and the Post Master for allegedly demanding bribe for delivering Speed Post Articles containing passport is serious in nature. Further, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioners that the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Department had prima facie established the compliant is genuine.
5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners takes a stand that the aspect of demanding ‘Bakshish’ should have been taken cognizance of by the 1st Respondent/Tribunal. However, the 1st Respondent/Tribunal had treated the case as a mere dispute about the address.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners comes out with an argument that the Department had initiated an inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by issuing a charge memo, but the 1st Respondent/Tribunal has set aside the charge memo and quashed the same, which is an incorrect one in the eye of Law.
7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners brings it to the notice of this Court that the 1st Respondent/Tribunal had quashed the charge sheet without taking into account the complaint made by the complainant or the preliminary report of the Assistant Director (Investigation) in Postmaster General’s Office. In short, it is the contention of the Petitioners that there is no procedural lacuna in initiating Rule 14 Inquiry by the Department and certainly, an opportunity to prove the 2nd Respondent’s innocence would be provided to him, but he filed the original application and obtained an interim stay for continuance of enquiry. Apart from that, as an delinquent employee, if the 2nd Respondent, has any grievance in respect of the charge sheet, he must raise the issue by submitting a representation and wait for the decision of the Disciplinary Authority.
8. It is urged on behalf of the Petitioners that the 2nd Respondent is a public servant receiving salary and remuneration from the Government and that the Postman ser
