2022 Supreme(Telangana) 65
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. Naveen Rao, G. Radha Rani, JJ.
S.S.R.A. Prasad, S/o. Late Laxminarayana - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, rep. By its Director General, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan Sansad Marg, New Delhi and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 27043 of 2021
Decided On : 15-03-2022
Conflict of interest of the decision-maker can vitiate the decision-making process.
Headnote:
Certiorari - Disciplinary Action - 27.09.2013 - [Article 14, 19, 311] - The court set aside the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the administrative member forming part of the division bench which decided the O.A. was earlier Chief Post Master General, who issued the concerned orders. The petitioner was working as Sub-Post Master and was elected as Divisional Secretary to the All India Postal Employees Union, Hyderabad, South East Division. The Chief Post Master General issued directions on 27.09.2013, which led to the union issuing an internal circular criticizing the directions. The Charge Memo dated 06.06.2014 was initiated against the petitioner based on the tone and tenor of the internal circular. The court found that the administrative member should not have sat in the bench to decide the issue due to conflict of interest.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sub-Post Master and Divisional Secretary to the All India Postal Employees Union, was subjected to disciplinary action based on an internal circular criticizing directions issued by the Chief Post Master General on 27.09.2013.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the order of the Tribunal due to the conflict of interest of the administrative member who was the Chief Post Master General and issued the concerned orders.
Issues: Conflict of interest of the administrative member, Alleged misconduct of the petitioner based on the internal circular issued by the union.
Ratio Decidendi: The administrative member forming part of the division bench should not have decided the issue due to conflict of interest.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Tribunal and allowed the petitioner to raise additional grounds before the Tribunal.
ORDER :
P.Naveen Rao, J.
The prayer sought in the writ petition reads as under:
“…to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by calling for the records relating to the order of the order the Honble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dt.12.04.2021, in O.A/021/00316/2015 & MA/021/00681/2019, as unjust, contrary to law as the Hon’ble Administrative Member himself was a part of the proceedings there by void in law and also the proceedings of the 4th respondent bearing Charge Memo No. Union/Dlgs. Dated 06.06.2014 and quash the same for making ambiguous allegation against the petitioner while working as Postal Assistant, Amberpet SO during the period from 17.06.2013 and while functioning as Divisional Secretary, All India Postal Employees Union, Group ‘C’, Hyderabad South East Division issued a Bulletin No.14 dated 10.10.2013 in his name with designation as Divisional Secretary criticizing adversely the current and recent policies of the Central Government, issued a Bulletin No.13 dated 21.09.2013 in his name and also in the name of one Sri B Ramachander, the Divisional President of the AIPEU Group C, Hyderabad South East Division, criticizing the administration and functioning of the Divisional Head of Hyderabad South East Division, sought relief to a nonmember and fail to maintain devotion to duty, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Article 14, 1,6 19 and 311 of the Constitution of India and violative of statutory rules on the subject matter and is against the principles of natural Justice apart from vindictive manner, intended to penalize the Union Office Bearer and without power and authority under the rules in as much as disciplinary authority was issued Charge Memo on the basis of the circular of then C.P.M.G, the present Hon’ble Administrative Member, who rendered the final order, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N.Rajeshwar Rao, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents.
3. Petitioner is applicant in OA/021/00316/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. The said O.A. was instituted challenging the drawing of Charge Memo dated 06.06.2014. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. by order dated 12.04.2021.
4. The petitioner is working as Sub-Post Master. He was elected as Divisional Secretary to the All India Postal Employees Union, Hyderabad, South East Division. On 27.09.2013, Chief Post Master General issued directions to various unit heads. The focus of the order is on opening of accounts in branch offices. The target fixed is 500 accounts in two months and the staff were asked to pay special attention to create at least nine accounts per day. The unit heads were directed to upload the information of creation of accounts and further directions were issued to controlling authorities upto the level of Regional Post Masters General and Directors to monitor the progress. The intensity of the drive can be understood by noting the words used by the Chief Post Master General in the last paragraph which read as, “raining of accounts in the said period”.
5. The postal employees were upset with the kind of directions issued by the Chief Post Master General. They appears to have lodged their protest. Disturbed by these directions impacting them and their working conditions, the union issued an internal circular to all its members on 10.10.2013. This circular takes exception to the directions issued by Chief Post Master General and also makes certain comments against officials in taking recourse to creating large number of new accounts and the local level officials resorting to splitting the existing accounts and creating multiple accounts causing lot of hardship and suffering to the staff working at the ground level. This internal