Dismissed

Pooja Mazumdar v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Nov 2019WP(C)/6294/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ challenging a Gramin Dak Sevak's put off duty. The Court held the Assistant Superintendent acted validly under the Rules' proviso, and the subsequent ratification by the recruiting authority satisfied procedural compliance.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as the grounds urged are found unacceptable.

Pooja Mazumdar Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010186422019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 6294/2019

¶5

1:POOJA MAZUMDAR

¶6

GDS BPM, ITKHOLA BRANCH OFFICE IN ACCOUNT WITH MALUGRAM SUB OFFICE, SILCHAR HEAD OFFICE, DAUGHTER OF RANJU MAZUMDAR, RESIDENT OF VIVEKANANDA ROAD, SILCHAR, CACHAR, ASSAM (UNDER PUT OFF DUTY)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS AND CHAIRPERSON, POSTAL SERVICE BOARD, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, POSTAL DIRECTORATE DAK BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110001.

¶10

2:THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL ASSAM CIRCLE 4TH FLOOR MEGHDOOT BHAWAN PANBAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001.

¶11

3:THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES CACHAR DIVISION SILCHAR-1.

¶12

4:THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS SILCHAR NORTH SUB-DIVISION SILCHAR-1

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BANIK

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶17

Date : 08-11-2019

¶18

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶19

(AM Bujor Barua, J)

¶20

Heard Mr. S Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SC Keyal, learned Assistant SGI for the Union of India.

¶21

The petitioner, who was serving as a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master (GDSBPM) in the Itkhola Branch Office under the Senior Superintendent of Post Office Cachar Division, Department of Post: India, was put off duty with immediate effect under Rule 12(1)(a) of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011 (for short, the Rules of 2011). As per the memo No.A1/Itkhola BO dated 30.04.2019, the order of put off duty was issued by the Assistant Superintendent Posts, Silchar, North Sub-Division. Subsequently, by the memo No.F1/Misc-3/2019 dated 03.05.2019, the Senior Superintendent Posts, Cachar Division, Silchar had ratified the order dated 30.04.2019 by which the petitioner was put off duty.

¶22

An ejahar was also lodged by the Assistant Superintendent of Posts, Silchar before the In-Charge of Malugram Police Station, Silchar. In the ejahar, the Assistant Superintendent of Posts alleged that the petitioner has misbehaved with him and also physically snatched away the records while he was doing his duty in his office. It was also alleged that the petitioner had not provided him with many other important necessary official documents/records when he wanted to examine the same. Thereupon, an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide memo dated 10.06.2019 under Rule 10 of the Rules of 2011.

¶23

Articles of charges enclosed to the memorandum, more particularly, the Article 2 provided that the petitioner during the period from 13.06.2016 to 30.04.2019 did not write the Branch Office Daily

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

Accounts Book of the Itkhola Branch Office w.e.f. 24.04.2019 to 29.04.2019 as found by the Assistant Superintendent Posts. The statement of imputation in respect of Article 2 also contains that for the given period, the petitioner did not write and maintain the Branch Office Account Book.

¶26

Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2019, by which the petitioner was put off duty as well as the subsequent order dated 03.05.2019 by which the put off duty was ratified by the Senior Superintendent of Posts, the petitioner had filed Original Application No.040/00210/2019 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, the CAT). The CAT by its order dated 08.07.2019 had dismissed the said Original Application. In its order, the Tribunal had recorded that the learned counsel for the applicant before the CAT had urged upon the grounds that the Assistant Superintendent Posts, Silchar was not competent to pass the order. But, however, as the order was subsequently ratified by the competent authority by its order dated 30.05.2019, the Tribunal was not inclined to interfere.

¶27

As the order of put off duty was not a penalty and no deviation of the procedure was observed, the order of the Tribunal dated 08.07.2019 is assailed in this writ petition on the ground that under Rule 12(1) of the Rules of 2011, only the recruiting authority or any authority to which the recruiting authority is subordinate or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Government by a special or general order may put a Sevak off duty. The petitioner contends that the Assistant Superintendent Posts being neither a recruiting authority, nor an authority to which the recruiting authority is subordinate nor it being any other authority who has been empowered by general or special order, the order of put off duty dated 30.04.2019 is unsustainable.

¶28

Mr. SC Keyal, learned Assistant SGI refers to the proviso to Rule 12(1) of the Rules of 2011 which provides that in cases involving fraud or embezzlement, a Sevak holding any post specified in the schedule may be put off duty by the Inspector of Posts Offices or the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices of the Sub-Division, as the case may be, under immediate intimation of the recruiting authority. Further Rule 12(2) was referred which provided that an order made by the Inspector of Post Offices or the Superintendent of Post Offices, as the case may be, shall cease to be effective on the expiry of 15 days from the date of such order unless it is earlier confirmed or cancelled by the recruiting authority.

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

In the instant case, the order of put off duty was passed by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices of the Sub-Division which is a prescribed procedure under the proviso to Rule 12(1). Further the order of put off duty dated 30.04.2019 had been ratified by the Senior Superintendent of Posts, by his order dated 03.05.2019 who is the recruiting authority. The ratification by the recruiting authority prior to the expiry of 15 days from the order dated 30.04.2019 satisfies the requirement of Rule 12(2) of the Rules of 2011.

¶31

In such view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity either in the order of put off duty dated 30.04.2019 issued by the Assistant Superintendent of Posts, nor in the order dated 03.05.2019 by which the earlier order was ratified by the recruiting authority, being the Senior Superintendent of Posts.

¶32

In view of the above, the grounds urged upon in this petition are found to be unacceptable. Writ petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.

¶33

JUDGE JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Pooja Mazumdar v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja Mazumdar v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjit Teron and 152 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 125 Ors.

Ranjit Teron and 152 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 125 Ors.

Sri Nabadip Ojha Vs Smti. Kabita Baruah Ojah

M/S. Rnt Enterprise and 2 Ors. Vs the Allahabad Bank and Anr.

Dibrugarh Fishery Co-Operative Society Limited, Dibrugarh Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Salik Uddin Ahmed and 6 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.