SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35527

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top