The High Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the initiation of disciplinary proceedings after an interim stay order by the Central Administrative Tribunal expired. The Court held that the petitioner failed to move the Tribunal for an extension of stay, making the direct approach to this Court non-maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
W.P.No.6688 of 2022
ORDER : (per AVSS,J)
Heard Smt.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India for respondents.
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the following relief:
“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in not extending interim order dated 26.02.2020 in O.A./20/166/2020 and consequent action of respondents, particularly 4th respondent in initiating disciplinary proceedings on the selfsame charge in respect of C.C.No.2243 of 2018 on the file of Learned VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Rajamahendravarm, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of settled principles of service jurisprudence and violative of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and Principles of Natural Justice and offends Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to proceed with said disciplinary proceedings against petitioner till the disposal of C.C.No.2243/2018 on the file of the Court of Learned VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram and pass such other orders.”
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner is working as Multi Tasking Staff, in the Department of Posts, Government of India. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Rajahmundry West Sub Division, Rajahmundry-4th respondent herein, passed an order vide memo No.PF/SSNP/MTS/SSNP/2017-18, Rajahmundry-533106, dated 15.09.2017, placing the petitioner under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Simultaneously, the department also initiated proceedings under the criminal law
2 AVSS,J & RC,J
W.P.No.6688 of 2022
and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dowlaiswaram Police Station, laid the charge sheet against the petitioner and another for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 408, 409, 420, 468, 471, 379, 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, C.C.No.2243 of 2018 is pending before the Court of the VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.
The 4th respondent vide memorandum No.PF/ SSNP/MTS/Dowlaiswaram SO/Digs, Rajahmundry, dated 30.08.2019, issued a charge memo, framing the following articles of charge:
“ ARTICLE-I
That the said Sri S.Satyanarayana Prasad, MTS (under Suspension). Dowlaiswaram SO while working as MTS, Dowlaiswarm SO under Rajahmundry HO during the period from 07.09.2013 to 15.09.2017 has misused the oblong stamp of Dowlaiswaram SO for impressing ACG14(T) receipt book and fraudulently withdrawn an amount of Rs.26,00,000/- from the SBI, Dowlaiswaram Branch by colluding with Sri Y.Ramesh, outsider who worked as substitute for the GDS pkr, Dowlaiswaram SO by misusing the above said ACG-14(T) receipt book.
Therefore, it is alleged that Sri S.Satyanarayana Prasad, MTS (under Suspension), Dowlaiswaram SO while working as MTS Dowlaiswaram SO under Rajahmundry HO has misused the Oblong Stamp of Sub Office by violating the provisions of Sub Rule-1 & 2 of Rule-21 of Postal Manual Volume VI, Part-I, thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity as required by Rule-3(1)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-II
That the said Sri S.Satyanarayan Prasad, MS (under Suspension), Dowlaiswaram SO while working as MTS, Dowlaiswaram SO under Rajahmundry HO during the period from 07.09.2013 to 15.09.2017 has stolen the ACG-14(T) receipt book of Dowlaiswaram SO from the custody of SPM, Dowlaiswaram SO and misused the receipts of ACG-14(T) for fraudulent cash withdrawals to the tune of Rs.26,00,000/- from the SBI, Dowlaiswaram Branch by colluding with Sri Y.Ramesh, outsider who worked as substitute for the GDS pkr, Dowlaiswaram SO.
Therefore, it is alleged that Sri S.Satyanarayana Prasad, MTS (under Suspension), Dowlaiswaram SO while working as MTS, Dowlaiswaram SO under Rajahmundry HO has stolen and misused the ACG-14(T) receipt book of Dowlaiswaram SO by violating the provisions of Rule-104 of Postal Manual Volume-VI Part-III, Sub Rule-4(A) under Rule-22 of Postal Manual Volume VI Part-I and used the same for committing fraud to the tune of Rs.26,00,000/- and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity as required by Rule-3(1)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”
3 AVSS,J & RC,J
W.P.No.6688 of 2022
Thereafter, the 4th respondent, vide proceedings No.PF/SSNP/MTS/Dowlaiswaram SO/Digs at Rajahmundry533 106, dated 30.12.2021, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-Rule 5 of Rule-14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, appointed an Inquiry Officer. In the meanwhile, assailing the said action on the part of the respondents in holding disciplinary proceedings, petitioner herein filed O.A./20/166/2020, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The Central Administrative Tribunal on 26.02.2020, passed an interim order, directing the respondents not to proceed with the departmental inquiry against the petitioner/applicant herein, for a period of one year or till the finalisation of the criminal case, whichever be earlier.
Obviously, in view of the expiry of the one year period, as fixed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the aforesaid order, the 4th respondent herein, by way of memo dated 30.12.2021, appointed an Inquiry Officer. Subsequently, further proceedings have also been initiated vide proceedings No.ASP(E)/I.O/SSNP/MTS/DWM SO/2022 at Rajahmundry533 103, dated 10.02.2022, and the daily order sheet No.01, dated 21.02.2022.
In the above back ground, the petitioner herein has come up before this Court with the present Writ Petition, complaining
4 AVSS,J & RC,J
W.P.No.6688 of 2022
against non-extension of the interim order, dated 26.02.2020, granted by the Tribunal in O.A.No.20/166/2020 and the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
According to Smt.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner because of non-extension of the said order granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner herein is sustaining irreparable hardship in the name of disciplinary proceedings by the respondents authorities.
A perusal of the order dated 26.02.2020, in clear and vivid terms reveals that the Central Administrative Tribunal stayed the departmental proceedings for a period of one year or till the finalisation of the criminal case, whichever be earlier.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the criminal case is still pending.
On the other hand, Sri N.Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondents, submits that the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, in absence of any order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and without filing any application seeking extension of stay granted earlier, the present Writ Petition has been filed directly before this Court and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition is totally silent, as to whether the applicant/writ petitioner herein has filed any application before the Tribunal, seeking extension of
5 AVSS,J & RC,J W.P.No.6688 of 2022
time and it is also silent as to whether the applicant has made such a request before the Tribunal for extension of time. As the Original Application is pending consideration before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner herein ought to have filed an appropriate application before the Tribunal instead of filing the present Writ Petition before this Court.
In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition. However, it is open for the petitioner herein to move an appropriate application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, if the petitioner is advised to do so, for consideration of the same by the Central Administrative Tribunal, strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the orders in the present Writ Petition.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed, with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a Sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for
consideration, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
________________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Date:21.03.2022 VSL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Writ Petition is maintainable before this Court when the petitioner failed to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for extension of stay on departmental proceedings.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Nimmagadda Revathi
Union of India
A.V.Sesha Sai
Ravi Cheemalapati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
