W.P No.23126/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
WRIT PETITION No.23126 OF 2017 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN :
SMT. R.K. VASANTHI
W/O CHANDRAHASA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT C/O NARASIMHA RAJU
CHANDRAMOULESHWARA EXTENTION
6TH CROSS, KRISHNA ROAD
KYATHASANDRA POST
TUMAKURU-572 104 ... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. V.K. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1.
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS
DAK BHAVAN
NEW DELHI-110 001
2.
THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL
KARNATAKA CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560 001
W.P No.23126/2017
2
3.
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
OF POST OFFICES
BANGALORE WEST DIVISION
BANGALORE-560 084 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. B. PRAMOD, CGC)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD28.10.2016 PASSED IN O.A.NO.170/01665/2015 ON THE
FILE OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH
VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF REMOVING THE
PETITIONER FROM HER SERVICE.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCE AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.01.2022, COMING
ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH
KUMAR J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
We have heard Shri. V.K.Srikanth, learned Advocate
for petitioner and Shri. B. Pramod, learned CGC for
respondents.
Petitioner has inter alia challenged the order
dated October 28, 2016 passed in O.A. No.170/01665/2015
and order dated January 31, 2017 in Review Application
No.170/00004/2017 by the CAT1.
1 Central Administrative Tribunal
3
Brief facts of the case are, petitioner was
working as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Master (GDS-BMP)2
in
Mangaluru
Division
during
1989.
She
was
later
transferred to Bengaluru and posted as 'Post woman' at
Peenya Small Industries SO, with effect from July 1, 2010.
4.
Departmental proceedings were initiated against
the petitioner for failure to deliver Speed post articles
pertaining to reputed industries. Vide order dated December
21, 2012, a minor penalty of reduction of pay by one stage,
for a period of two years was imposed. Subsequently, on
October 14, 2013, proceedings were initiated under Rule 14
of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 19653. A statement containing three Articles
of charges were served on the petitioner. After holding a
detailed enquiry, all three charges were held proved. By
order dated November 27, 2014, petitioner was removed
from service. The appeal filed thereon, also stood dismissed
vide Order dated October 29, 2015. Petitioner challenged
2 'GDS-BMP' for short
3 'Rules' for short
4
the same before the CAT. By a detailed order, the CAT has
dismissed the O.A. The review petition filed thereon has
also been dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.
5.
Shri. Srikanth, learned Advocate for petitioner
urged a solitary ground that petitioner was imposed with a
minor penalty for the very same charges, which are subject
matter of second enquiry. Therefore, the second enquiry
and penalty order are illegal.
6.
Shri.
B.
Pramod,
learned
CGC
for
the
respondents submitted that petitioner has urged the very
same ground of double jeopardy before the CAT and the
same has been rejected. He submitted that minor penalty
was imposed for not delivering the 'speed post' articles and
the second enquiry which is subject matter of this writ
petition is for, not delivering the 'Ordinary Articles'
pertaining to Beat No.1, 6 and 7 and violating Rule 127 and
129 of the Postal Manual and two other charges. Hence, the
5
ground urged by the petitioner is untenable and prayed for
dismissal of this petition.
7.
We have carefully considered rival contentions
and perused the records.
8.
The
only
contention
urged
before
us
is,
respondents have imposed minor penalty for the mis-
conduct and again initiated second departmental enquiry.
We have carefully perused the order imposing minor
penalty. The misconduct recorded therein is failure to effect
delivery of speed post articles, passing irrelevant remarks
on those articles, failure to obey the orders of the post
master and refusing to sign the error book & order book.
That
order
was
passed
on
December
21,
2012.
Subsequently, proceedings have been initiated under Rule
14 of the Rules. The first Article of charge is specifically
with regard to non-delivery of 'Ordinary Articles'. The
second Article of charge is refusal to sign error book and
order book. The third Article of charge is refusal to give
6
statements in connection with irregularities and lack of
devotion to the duty.
9.
It is recorded in the enquiry report that
petitioner has attended the enquiry on all dates but refused
to sign on the depositions given by the prosecution
witnesses and also refused to cross-examine them. On
behalf of the Department, as many as 22 witnesses have
been examined as P.W.1 to P.W.22. In her reply, petitioner
has stated that all witnesses have turned hostile, majority
of them were secured or tutored at the behest of superiors
and that there is no truth or genuineness in their
statement. The non-delivered articles have been identified
by the witnesses. A mahazar, Ex.P24 was also drawn
regarding petitioner's refusal to give the stateme
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.