Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3937
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, AM
O.P.Adinarayana – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.020/00228/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri B.Gurudas
For the Respondents: Smt. B.Gayatri Varma, Sr.CGSC
The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a fair hearing in disciplinary proceedings, asserting that the appellate authority must address the applicant's defense adequately.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Disciplinary proceedings - Applicant challenged the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on grounds of false allegations and violation of natural justice - The Tribunal found procedural adherence but noted lack of response to the applicant's defense in the appellate proceedings - Matter remitted for reconsideration with opportunity for a personal hearing. (Paras 1, 12, 13)
(B) Judicial Review - The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; the Tribunal does not substitute its judgment for that of the disciplinary authority unless the findings are arbitrary or perverse. (Paras 11)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a Postal Assistant, was penalized for allegedly refusing to book parcels based on complaints from a colleague. He contended the complaints were false and retaliatory, supported by transaction reports and a certificate from the college.
Findings of Court:
The disciplinary proceedings were procedurally sound, but the appellate authority failed to address the applicant's defense adequately.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary actions were justified and whether the applicant was given a fair opportunity to defend himself.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the appellate authority to consider the applicant's defense and provide an opportunity for a personal hearing.
Result: The Original Application is disposed of with a remand for reconsideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant seeks relief against disciplinary action. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on disciplinary proceedings. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. judicial review scope in disciplinary matters. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. matter remitted for reconsideration. (Para 13 , 14) |
ORDER
PER: HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
“....to call for the records pertaining to the -
i. Memo No.CPT/Dlgs/2021-22, dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure-I)
ii. Memo No.CPT/Dlgs/2021-22 dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure-III and iii. Memo No.st/13-19/108/OPA/2021 dated 4.11.2022 (Annexure-VIII) Awarding heavy penalty on the basis of false allegations and rejecting the appeal of the applicant ignoring the documentary evidence and the submissions made by him and a. Declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the rules and instructions prescribed and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and b. Set aside and quash the said illegal orders with consequential direction to the respondents to refund the amount already recovered from the pay of the applicant and c. Pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:
i. The applicant worked as Postal Assistant at Palasa SO in the Srikakulam Postal Division, from May, 2011, to 2022. According to him, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Srikakulam Division/R5 issued a charge memo under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, on the basis of a false complaint made against him, at the instance of the Sub Postmaster, who was inimical towards him, without making a thorough investigation, vide Memo NO.CPT/Dlgs/2021-22, dt.27.10.2021. The charge against the applicant is as follows:
Charge:
“that Shri O.P.Adinarayana went for lunch at 12:30 hrs and refused to book the parcels brought by Shri M.Manoj and also the Intermediate Examination parcels when presented.
Thus, it is alleged that Shri O.P.Adinarayana, Palasa SO refused to book the parcels brought by Shri M.Manoj and also refused to book the 28 (twenty eight) Intermediate Examination parcels brought by the Chief Examination officer on 18.09.2021 at Palasa SO violating the provisions contained in rule 3(1) (ii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964.”
ii. The applicant submitted his explanation, dt.01.11.2021, in response to the charge memo. According to the applicant, Sri M.Vemana, Postal Assistant, while working as Sub Postmaster on officiating basis, committed some financial irregularities, which were brought to the notice of higher authorities by the applicant. Keeping this in view, Sri Vemana made his friend Manoj Kumar, to file a false complaint against him stating that the applicant had refused to book parcels brought by him and also examination parcels, which is not correct. The applicant did not leave the office at 12:30 hrs., as alleged. In fact, he was in the office booking articles, including the intermediate examination parcels which can be seen from the mail transaction report, dt. 18.09.2021. On that day, the applicant booked 52 articles, whereas the Sub Postmaster booked 9 articles only. The complaints were not shown to the applicant, in spite of specific request, violating the principles of natural justice. The Disciplinary Authority, who was prejudiced against the applicant, for pointing out some procedural irregularities and also financial irregularities, awarded the harsh penalty of reduction of pay from 31,400/- to Rs.30,500/-, from 1.1.2022, for a period of 3 years, without cumulative effect, and without having the effect of postponing future increments of pay, vide Memo No.CPT/Dlgs/2021-22, dt. 28.12.20
