Union of India and Others vs H.L. Ramesh

N.K. Patil, J.

The petitioners herein questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 22.4.2014 passed in O.A. No. 359/12 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, have presented this writ petition.

The brief facts of the case are, the respondent herein had joined the postal department on 1.8.1985 as GDS BPM (Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master) in Seege B.O. along with one Mr. Salgame, S.O., Hassan Division. Be that as it may, a memo was issued by the department informing the respondent that an enquiry was proposed to be held against him on the allegation that he accepted Rs. 4460/- on 11.9.2006 from Smt. Sannagangamma and failed to credit the same in her S.B. account and thus he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in contravention of Rule 21 of GDS (C and E) Rules, 2001. On receipt of the memo issued by the third petitioner, the respondent submitted his reply on 16.9.2008 accepting the charge made against him. Thereafter the respondent by his letter dated 22.9.2008 withdrew his admission and stated that his reply was written as per the dictation of Sri. B. Narayana, Inspector of Posts. The enquiry officer after conducting enquiry submitted his detailed report on 15.6.2010 holding that the charge against the respondent is proved. Copy of the report was furnished to the respondent by the third petitioner on 2.2.2011. After receipt of the copy of the report, he submitted his reply vide representation dated 21.2.2011. After due consideration of the reply submitted by him to the enquiry report, a detailed order was passed by the Competent Authority on 14.3.2011, imposing penalty of removal of the respondent from the employment. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Competent Authority dated 14.2.2011, respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 3.6.2011. The Appellate Authority, in turn, by its order dated 29.2.2012 rejected the appeal filed by the respondent and confirmed the order of penalty imposed on him. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the respondent filed O.A. No. 359/2012 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench. The Tribunal disposed of the application quashing the enquiry with a direction to the petitioners to conduct a de-novo enquiry if they so choose and intimate the respondent of this and if so, the respondent will be deemed as continued under suspension with all its normal and natural consequence and if such de-novo enquiry is not feasible and possible, the respondent can be taken into service with all consequential benefits. The copy of the order is produced at Annexure-A. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioners felt necessitated to file this petition.

Sri. Shashikantha, learned CGSC, submitted at the outset the impugned order is liable to be set aside at the threshold. To substantiate his submission he is quick to point out and take us through Annexures A2 and A3 and submitted that the reasons given in A2 are contrary to the reasons given in A3. The Tribunal without looking into A2 and A3 and also the enquiry report, without giving any reasons has proceeded to pass the impugned order, contrary to the material on record. It does not contain any discussion or any reasons. In short, it is not a speaking order. Hence, it is liable to be set aside at the threshold.

As against this the learned counsel for the respondent inter-alia sought to substantiate the impugned order passed by the Tribunal stating that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for interference. However, after going through the order impugned and the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this petition, he fairly submitted that the order impugned may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the same expeditiously after affording reasonable opportunity to both the parties.

After careful consideration of the submission made by both the parties and after perusal of the order impugned vide Annexure-A, it is manifest on the face of the order of the Tribunal that the order passed in contrary to the material on record in as much as the same is passed without taking into consideration the enquiry report and the order passed by the Competent Authority confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, we are of the considered view, the order impugned cannot be sustained by any stretch of imagination on the ground that the same is contrary to the material on record. Hence, the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. Therefore, without going into further merits and demerits of the case, and in order to safeguard the interest of the petitioners and the respondent and further having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) The instant writ petition is allowed;

ii) The impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, dated 22.4.2014 passed in O.A. No. 359/12 vide Annexure-A is hereby set aside.

Matter stands remanded back to the Tribunal to pass appropriate order in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioners and the respondent personally or through their counsel and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.