Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5524
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M. Swaminathan, J, Sangam Narain Srivastava, A
K. Rajmohan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A./1527/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s R. Malaichamy
For the Respondents: Mr. G. Dhamodaran
Principles of natural justice demand that a charged officer be given an opportunity to defend themselves, which includes considering explanations for misconduct.
Headnote:The applicant sought relief under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the disciplinary action taken against him due to allegations of misconduct. The court found that the principles of natural justice were not followed as the applicant was denied the opportunity to defend himself regarding the charges held as not proved. The court directed the matter be remanded back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the circumstances surrounding the charges and the applicant's explanation. The decision underscores the importance of due process and proper evaluation of responses in disciplinary proceedings.
The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking the following relief:
“i) To call for the records of the 4th Respondent pertaining to his order made in Memo No.ADA/KR/2014-15 dated 31.12.2014, the order of 2nd Respondent made in No.APP/GDS-1/KR/14-15 dated 01.06.2015 and the order of 1st Respondent made in Memo No.STC/4-10/2015 dated 09.10.2015 and set aside the same; consequent to, ii) direct the Respondents to reinstate the Applicant into service with all monitory benefits; and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.”
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant is as follows:
2.1 The Applicant while working as GDS MD/MC, Ramapuram BO a/w Vennar Bank SO, was issued a charge memo dated 13.12.2013 by the 3rd Respondent under Rule 10 of Department of Posts GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011 making allegations as follows:-
(i) The Applicant failed to make payment of OAP MO dated 05.07.2013 for Rs.1,000/- to the payee Smt.M.Ayyammal, (ii) He failed to deliver ordinary letters to the addressees of Thottakadu Village, (iii) He failed to maintain Village Postman Register-MS-85 or Postman Book-MS-27 from 30.04.2013 to 09.05.2013 and from 09.07.2013 to
24.07.2013 (iv) The Applicant attended the office in a drunken condition during working hours daily.
2.2 The Applicant denied the charges levelled against him. He has by mistaken identity paid the OAP MO for the month of July 2013 to a wrong person instead of the payee Smt.Ayyammal. Hence, he has credited the said amount of Rs.1,000/-into Post Office account by realizing his mistake of lapse. Under such circumstances, he has submitted a detailed reply dated 08.08.2014 to the Presenting Officer's report.
2.3 The 4th Respondent, being the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority (ADA) supplied the inquiry report dated 13.08.2014 to the Applicant. The Inquiry Officer (IO) held the charges I & III as proved and II & IV as not proved. The 4th Respondent did not express anything about the findings of the Inquiry Officer as regards to the charges II & IV in his letter dated 13.11.2014. On receipt of the inquiry report, the Applicant submitted a detailed reply dated 10.12.2014 and denied the allegations made against him.
2.4 But, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) in his order dated 31.12.2014, has disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer as regards to the charges II & IV and held all the charges as proved and imposed the punishment of Removal from engagement. The Applicant was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend his case. Aggrieved by the order of 4th Respondent, the applicant preferred an appeal dated 25.02.2015 to the 2nd Respondent, but it was rejected by an order dated 01.06.2015. The revision petition dated 08.08.2015, preferred to the 1st Respondent also was rejected by an order dated 09.10.2015. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA, seeking the aforesaid relief.
3. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their reply statement refuting all the averments made in the OA, except those which are admitted on facts. The respondents submitted that the IO has submitted his report dated 13.08.2014 by holding the articles of charge I & III as proved and the charges II and IV as not proved. The same was sent to the Applicant by the 4th Respondent on 13.11.2014, for submission of his representation if any. He submitted one representation dated 10.12.2014. In his representation, he has stated that he elaborated everything in his defence brief and he agreed with the findings of IO. He has further stated that, he admitted the articles I and III unconditionally. It is not true that the Applicant submitted the detailed reply dated 25.02.2015. On 25.02.2015 only he has submitted his appeal to the 2nd Respondent. The respondents further submitted that there is no need for the 4th Respondent, Adhoc Disciplinary Authority (ADA) to call
