Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 8957
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, J
Speed Post Centre National Sorting Hub, Begumpet Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
Union of India represented by The Chief Postmaster General Telangana Circle Hyderabad – Respondent
Original Application No.021/00686/2021 | OA No.736/2010 | OA No.1690/2007 | KMA No.1733/2007 | WP Nos.10694 & 10695 of 2005 | 1980 2 SLR 733
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri A B L N Pavan Kumar
For the Respondents: Smt. K.Rajitha, Sr.PC for CG
Unexplained inordinate delay in issuing a charge memo, coupled with lack of reasoned orders and denial of inspection, violates natural justice and justifies quashing the charge memo and punishment; eligibility for restoration of consequential benefits follows.
Headnote:(A) Statutory framework and references - Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rules 14 and 16; DoP&T OM No.142/5/2003-AVD.I, 06.04.2004; DoPT OM No.425/04/2012-AVD-IV(A), 29.11.2012; Vigilance Manual, para. 7.10.3; Postal Manual Volume III, Rule 77; CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 9; various DoT/Ministry communications cited in the order.
(B) Key legal principles and points of law - The disciplinary process must be timely and reasoned; unexplained delay vitiates proceedings; reasonable opportunity and access to records are essential; appellate orders must be reasoned and speaking; prejudice to the charged officer due to delay can justify quashing.
(C) Important facts of the case - The applicant challenged a Rule-16 disciplinary charge against him for delays and alleged denial of inspection and rushed finalisation just before retirement; the charge memo was issued after an eight-year delay; the appellate order was criticized as cryptic; the charge memo and punishment were quashed.
(D) Main issues addressed by the court - i) Whether there was unexplained delay of eight years in issuing the charge memo and whether that delay is legally sustainable; ii) Whether the charged officer was given reasonable opportunity and access to documents; iii) Whether the appellate and disciplinary orders were reasoned and compliant with governing guidelines. (E) Findings and reasoning (ratio decidendi) - The Court held that: “The delay of 8 years in service of charge memo as well as the rushed manner of disposal of the same, both have caused obvious prejudice to the cause of the applicant/charged officer.”; “There is also the glaring point of unexplained delay. The reason furnished for the delay is casual and flimsy and not a valid justification for the delay of eight years, and, is totally unsustainable as the applicant is ironically being penalised for a delay of 1 year and 10 months on his part by serving a charge memo which is late by eight long years.”; “The delay in initiating the departmental enquiry should be avoided … protracted disciplinary enquiry should be avoided.”; “The orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are cryptic and not reasoned and speaking orders.” (Paras 10-13) (F) Final decision or result - “In the light of the above discussions, the OA is allowed. The impugned orders, dt.30.03.2021, and, dt.01.09.2021, issued by Respondent Nos.2 & 1, respectively, along with the charge memo, dt.05.03.2021, are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to extend all consequential benefits to the applicant, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.” (Para 14) (G) Parties involved - Applicant (Disciplinary Authority/Administrative Official) versus Union of India and related postal department authorities (names omitted per instruction). (H) Dissenting opinions - None reported. (Paras 1-14)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and relief sought (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties' contentions and arguments on delay, opportunity to defend, inspection of records, and natural justice (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. judicial analysis: application of dopt ccs/cca rules, vigilance/manual provisions, and reliance on precedents (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings as a ground to quash the charge memo and punishment (ratio of the decision) (Para 13) |
| 5. outcome: oa allowed; impugned orders and charge memo quashed; consequential relief to be granted (Para 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 therein the following relief:
“....quash and set aside the Punishment Order vide Memo No.HQR/ST/Disc/GA/CHVG/2020 dt.30.03.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent and upholding the same vide Memo No.ST/Appeal- CHVG/HQR/2021, dt.1.9.2021 by the 1st respondent imposing the harsh punishment of “reducing the pay of the applicant by one stage from Rs.80,200/- (Level 9, Index 15) to Rs.77,900/- (Level 9, Index 14) for a period of 2 years with effect from 1.4.2021, and that the applicant will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of the period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing the future increment s of pay” as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the principles of natural justice and also against the relevant rules and procedure prescribed in CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as per the applicant, are as follows:
i. The applicant, while working as Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Secunderabad (S) Sub division, under the administrative jurisdiction of the 3rd Respondent, had issued a Rule 14 charge sheet against one Sri Kasim Sahab, for unauthorised absence from duty on 08.03.2013, after due draft approval from the 3rd Respondent who was the appointing authority for the post of Postman.
ii. After issue of the charge sheet, the 3rd Respondent appointed an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer. After that, in the month of October, 2013, he was transferred from that sub-division. The 2nd Respondent, after more than 8 years of the incident, issued a Rule 16 charge sheet against the applicant, on 05.03.2021, which was received on 12.03.2021, alleging that there was a delay in the issue of the charge sheet. He fixed a time of 10 days for submission of defence statement against the charge sheet, as against the prescribed period of 15 days, as per rules. The applicant tried to trace the records, but could find out only the draft charge sheet, which is annexed as Annexure-A/III. He made a representation, dt.21.03.2021, asking the 2nd Respondent to permit him to inspect the documents relied upon and mentioned in the charge sheet. The Disciplinary Authority i.e., the 2nd Respondent, who was going to retire on superannuation, on 31.03.2021, in a hurried manner, without giving permission to inspect the document, imposed the harsh punishment of reduction of pay for a period of 2 years, vide orders dt.30.03.2021. It is alleged that the 2nd Respondent, with ill intention or ill motive, had passed the order of punishment, without giving reasonable opportunity to the applicant. It is also alleged that the 2nd Respondent had issued the charge sheet mainly with an intention to deny promotion to Group B to the applicant, which was due to him and hurried to impose the punishment before his retirement on superannuation. The applicant, aggrieved by the punishment, made an appeal to the 1st Respondent, citing various grounds, like delay, not giving reasonable opportunity, ill intention and denial of promotion to the applicant. The Appella
