The main legal point established in the judgment is that once disciplinary proceedings are dropped without giving any reason, a proceeding cannot be re-initiated, as per the circular dated 05.07.1979.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for records in respect of the impugned order dated 31.10.2019 in O.A.No.606 of 2014 passed by the first respondent and quash the same.)

V. Lakshminarayanan, J.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, passed in O.A.No.606 of 2014 dated 31.10.2019.

2. The facts leading to the present proceedings are the second respondent before this Court filed original application in O.A.No.606 of 2014, to set aside the Memo No.F1/09/08-09 dated 11.12.2012 and Memo No.VIG/15-17/13-14 dated 31.12.2013 passed by writ petitioners herein and for the consequential orders. The Tribunal allowed the application and set aside the proceedings on 31.10.2019. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition has been filed on 05.09.2022.

3. There is no explanation in the affidavit as to why the order has been challenged after nearly three years. In the mean while, the second respondent has retired from service in the year 2022. However, we are not inclined to dismiss the Writ Petition only on the ground of delay and latches.

4. The applicant was working as Postal Assistant at Nagal Nagar in Dindigul Division. He was visited with charge Memo on 15.06.2012 and he had submitted response to the same on 03.07.2012. He had requested exoneration from all charges and in case, his explanation was not accepted, for oral enquiry as per Rule 16(1-A) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Soon after his response dated 03.07.2012, the writ petitioners had communicated him that they were dropping the proceedings in and by way of a letter dated 24.08.2012. The letter dated 24.08.2012 is extracted for ready reference:-

“Whereas Sri. M.M. Philomin Raj Selastine, Sub Postmaster, Sanarpatti SO 624304 has been proceeded under Rule 16 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 vide this Office Memo No.F1/09/08-09 dated 15.06.2012.

Now, Therefore, the undersigned hereby drops the above said proceedings without prejudice to further action which may be considered in the circumstances of the case”

5. After having dropped the proceedings, fresh proceedings were initiated on the very same set of charges by the writ petitioners against the second respondent. He filed representation on 24.09.2012 and according to the applicant without considering the representation, it was decided on 11.12.2012 (impugned proceedings) to withhold one increment for the period of two years without cumulative effect from 01.07.2013. He preferred statutory appeal on 26.04.2013. The said appeal was rejected on technical grounds that the proceedings are barred by time. The appellate order was passed on 31.12.2013.

6. According to the applicant before the Tribunal, the proceedings are contrary to the direction of the Director General of Post and Telegram in his order in letter No.114/324/78-Disciplinary II dated 05 th July, 1979. The specific case before the Tribunal is that the dropping of charges, which has been extracted as above, does not disclose any reasons as required by the proceedings dated 05.07.1979, which are binding on the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners, as respondents before the Tribunal, filed a detailed reply.

7. According to them, an enquiry was conducted by the department to find out certain fraudulent activities in the recurring deposit accounts. It was deducted on 24.11.2008. On the basis of the said enquiry, a charge memo was issued under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. They took note of the representation of the applicant dated 24.09.2012, against the charge memo and dropped the same. According to them, no reason needs to be stated for dropping the charge memo dated 15.06.2012. They were entitled to take further action considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the letter dropping the charges itself states that it is without prejudice