Dismissed

Union of India v. Shri Y N Chamaraj

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2021WP/15146/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a C.A.T. order quashing their department's recovery of funds from a respondent for frauds. The court dismissed the petition as an academic exercise since the Tribunal's order had already been implemented, resulting in the refund of the recovered amount to the respondent before this hearing.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; there shall be no order as to costs.

Union of India Vs Shri Y N Chamaraj — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 01^st DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶8

W.P.No.15146/2020 (S – CAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Union of India,

¶11

Rep. by its Secretary, Dept of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶12

The Chief Postmaster General, Karnataka Circle, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶13

The Postmaster General, S.K.Region, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶14

The Senior Supdt of Posts Offices, Kolar Postal Division, Kolar – 563 102. … Petitioners

¶15

(By Sri. D.Basavaraja, Adv.)

¶16

¶17

AND:

¶18

Shri. Y.N.Chamaraj, S/o late K.Y.Nagaiah, Aged 53 years, Working as Sub Postmaster, Chintamani Market PO-563 125. R/at 4^th cross, Opposite to Kishore Vidya Bhavan, Bengaluru Road, Anjani Extn, Chintamani. … Respondent (By Smt. Kamalesan.P, Adv.)

¶19

This petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the Order dated:30.01.2020 Annexure-A passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Bengaluru Bench Bengaluru in O.A.No.170/00142/2019 and declare the same to be illegal, Arbitrary and Contrary to the operational procedure prescribed by the petitioners department vide Annexure-R1.

¶20

This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, NAGARATHNA, J., made the following:

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

1. Though this writ petition is listed for preliminary

¶24

hearing – B group, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.

¶25

The legality and correctness of the order dated 30.01.2020 passed in O.A.No.170/00412/2019 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for the sake of convenience) is called in question by the Union of India and others.

¶26

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶27

During the course of submissions, it has been brought to our notice that the order of punishment imposed on the respondent dated 30.06.2017 which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, was set aside in the aforesaid Original Application. The order impugned

¶28

¶29

in the aforesaid Original Application was an order of punishment imposed on the respondent by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kolar Division, Kolar, seeking recovery of a sum of 1,22,550/- in respect of SB, RD frauds committed by Sri C.Ramanjaneya, ExGDSBPM/MD, Ammanallur Branch Post Office a/w Kaiwara Sub Post Office to be recovered from the pay of the respondent who was then the Sub Postmaster, Chintamani Market Sub Postmaster, at the rate of 3,400/- per month for 35 installments and remaining balance of 3,550/- in the 36<sup>th</sup> installment with effect from 01.07.2017. It is stated at the Bar that the aforesaid punishment was implemented and a sum of 1,22,550/- had been recovered from the respondent. But, pursuant to the impugned order of the Tribunal, the said amount has been refunded/released to the respondent.

¶30

In the circumstances, we do not think this petition would call for further consideration as the impugned

¶31

¶32

order of the Tribunal has already been implemented by the petitioners as the amount of `1,22,550/- which was recovered from the respondent has been

¶33

refunded/released to him pursuant to the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the consideration of the impugned order of the Tribunal on merits is only an academic exercise now, which is wholly unnecessary in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

PKS

Union of India v. Shri Y N Chamaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Shri Y N Chamaraj

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

Gas Authority of India Limited Vs M/S Manyata Residents Association

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Manyatha Residents Association

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Manyatha Residents Association

The Management of Karnataka Vs the Vice President

Aravinda Thayyar Girls High School Vs Smt. L. Vidyavathi

Shankar Vs Union of India