Allowed

Union of India v. P.A. Manikandan

Kerala HC26 May 2016WP(C)/536/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Central Administrative Tribunal order. The court found that the department had complied with directions by releasing family pension and granting compassionate appointment to the deceased employee's son. Consequently, the court deleted the cost order and modified the direction regarding disciplinary action against officials, placing discretion with the Chief Postmast

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed not to pay cost; direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings modified to allow Chief Postmaster General discretion.

Union of India Vs P.A. Manikandan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2016/5TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶6

WP(C).No. 536 of 2008 (S) --------------------------

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 859/2004 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 02-07-2007

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

--------------

¶10

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY/DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS,, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, NEW DELHI.

¶11

2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, ERNAKULAM DIVISION, KOCHI-682 011.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR SRI.PRADEEP KRISHNA, CGC SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

1. P.A.MANIKANDAN, S/O. LATE T.K. ACHUTHAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT PADINJARE, NELLICKAL HOUSE, THEVACKAL,

¶16

V.K.COLONY PO,ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN-682 021.

¶17

R,R BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PRASAD R,R BY ADV. SRI.ABHILASH S.FRANCIS R BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-052016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sks

¶20

WP(C).No. 536 of 2008 (S)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶23

P1. TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

¶24

P2. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶25

P3. TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN.

¶26

P4. TRUE COPY OF AN ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT WAS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN TO THE REJOINDER.

¶27

P5. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2007 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

sks

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &

¶33

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶34

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c) No.536 of 2008

¶35

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26^th day of May 2016

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

P.R.Ramachandra Menon J.

¶38

The respondents in O.A. No.859 of 2004 are the petitioners before this Court. The respondent herein happens to be the 2^nd applicant in O.A.859/2004.

¶39

The 1^st applicant by name Sri. T.K.Achuthan Pillai was working as a Postman in the Ernakulam Head Post Office. While so, he was entrusted with delivery of some postal articles to the addressees concerned. Among the said items, some articles were addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ernakulam, whose office was situated in the same building, where the first applicant Postman was working. The aforesaid items of postal articles sent by registered post to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ernakulam were returned by the applicant Postman making an endorsement on the envelopes that the addressee had 'gone out'. Taking note of the situation and the need of the hour, the authorities of the Postal Department entrusted another person working under similar capacity to serve the postal articles to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices. Admittedly, the registered postal articles were served to the

¶40

W.P.(c) No.536 of 2008 :2:

¶41

Senior Superintendent of Post Offices in the afternoon of the very same day.

¶42

On coming across the sequence of events, the Departmental authorities got arrayed and the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices filed a complaint against the course of action pursued by the respondent herein. Pursuant to the said complaint, disciplinary action was initiated and one Mr. E.T.Hari working as ASP(HQ), was deputed as the Inquiry Officer. It is stated that the the Inquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted a report, holding that the first charge as to the nondelivery of the postal articles was proved. The matter was considered by the disciplinary authority in the light of all the relevant records who concurred with the finding of the Inquiry Officer arriving at the guilt of the delinquent employee, who in turn imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service on 4.11.2004. Annexure A2 order imposing the punishment was challenged by the original applicant by filing the O.A along with the 2^nd applicant/his son before the Tribunal. The prayers in the O.A are in the following terms.

¶43

“ a) to call for the records relating to the Annexure-A2 Memo No.B-3/11-TKA dated 04.11.2004 issued by the 3^rd respondent and set aside the Annexure -A2.

¶44

b) To issue appropriate direction or order commanding the Respondents 2 and 3 to cause to conduct medical examination on the 1^st applicant and discharge the 1^st applicant from service prematurely on medical grounds on the basis of the medical report.

¶45

W.P.(c) No.536 of 2008 :3:

¶46

c) to issue appropriate direction or order commanding the Respondents 2 and 3 to grant compassionate employment assistance to the 2^nd applicant and give him appointment in the post of Postman or any other suitable post in the Department of Posts.

¶47

d) To grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, proper and just in the circumstances of the case. e) To award costs to the Applicants.”

¶48

The above reliefs were sought to be opposed by the Department on various grounds. While so, the original applicant expired, when his son, the respondent herein (2^nd applicant) came to be brought in as the legal heir of the original applicant, after deleting the latter's name, as per order in M.A. No.45/06. After hearing both sides, Ext.P5 order was passed by the Tribunal, whereby the O.A was partly allowed with cost of Rs.3,000/- directing the concerned respondent to consider the claim for compassionate appointment sought to be given to the 2^nd applicant. The Tribunal also observed that the proceedings had not reflected complete transparency. It is stated that, as per the records, the Inquiry Officer has submitted a report on 17.8.2004 to the disciplinary authority viz., Sri. K.J.Joseph who is no more. A second report was submitted on 27.8.2004. In the meanwhile, the 3^rd respondent before the Tribunal (Superintendent of Post Offices) Sri.K.J.Joseph was transferred, pursuant to which, another Superintendent of Post Offices by name Sri. K.Ramamchandran came to be appointed as the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices. Existence of the 2^nd report alone was brought to the notice

¶49

W.P.(c) No.536 of 2008 :4:

¶50

of the Tribunal, having said nothing regarding the first inquiry report, which hence was deprecated by the Tribunal. This led to the observations made in paragraph 28 against the departmental authorities at different levels, simultaneously, directing the 2^nd respondent Chief Post Master General, (2^nd petitioner herein) to look into the conduct of omissions and commissions on the part of the concerned officers and initiate appropriate action against them as per the relevant rules. The action taken report was directed to be submitted before the Tribunal within three months. This made the petitioners (respondents in O.A) feel aggrieved who are before this Court challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the Tribunal.

¶51

Heard Sri.N.Nagaresh, the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners at length.

¶52

It is seen that the writ petition was admitted on 7.01.2008 granting an interim order of stay with regard to the payment of cost and also as to the direction to proceed with disciplinary proceedings against the officials concerned. The interim order was extended at different points of time, until it was extended further orders on 5.6.2008. The interim stay was sought to be vacated by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. This matter was considered by this Court on 3.11.2008 and it was ordered in the following terms.

¶53

W.P.(c) No.536 of 2008

¶54

:5:

¶55

“Heard. The learned counsel for the respondent prays for vacating the interim order. We notice that, we have only stayed the direction to pay cost of Rs.3,000/- and also the further direction to take disciplinary action against the officials concerned. The writ petitioners are bound to implement the other directions in the order of the Cat, Ext.P5. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out tat the other directions in favour of the respondent have not so far been implemented by the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners are directed to implement the directions of the CAT in Ext.P5, except those that are stayed by this Court, within two months from today.

¶56

Handover copy to both sides. Post after two months.”

¶57

From the above, it is quite evident that the interception made by this Court was only with regard to the payment of cost and with regard to the disciplinary proceedings ordered to be pursued against the concerned officers whose acts were deprecated by the Tribunal.

¶58

During the course of arguments, learned Assistant Solicitor General points out that the direction given by the Tribunal as per Ext.P5 have already been complied with, more so in the light of the order passed by this Court on 3.11.2008. It is submitted that the direction given by the Tribunal has already been complied with in respect of the claim. It is pointed that the entire family pension payable for the service rendered by the original applicant/employee has been released and the claim for 'compassionate appointment' raised by the 2^nd applicant, son of the

¶59

W.P.(c) No.536 of 2008 :6:

¶60

original applicant, was considered in his favour and has been offered compassionate appointment. It is stated that the 2^nd applicant had already joined duty.

¶61

After going through the materials on record this Court finds that the delinquent employee was proceeded against with reference to some misconduct and punishment was imposed after completing the procedural formalities. It is true that the concerned person who was occupying the office of the 3^rd respondent expired in the meanwhile and another person by name Sri. Ramachandran came to be posted in the said place, who had brought existence of only the 2^nd enquiry report to the notice of the Tribunal. But in view of the particular facts and circumstances and the sequence of events followed and also since the Department has released the entire family pension for the service of the deceased original applicant has given compassionate appointment to his son, the 2^nd applicant, we find it fit and proper to delete the imposition of cost, which is ordered accordingly. We also find it necessary to modify the direction given by the Tribunal to initiate disciplinary action against the officers mentioned therein, but for observing that, it will be open for the 2^nd respondent/Chief Post Master General to consider whether any serious lapse or omission was there on the part of any of the officials in connection with the cause of action projected in the O.A and if so, to consider whether any further action is be proceeded against them.

¶62

:7:

¶63

W.P.(c) No.536 of 2008

¶64

Reserving the rights and liberties in this regard, the writ petition stands disposed of. The verdict passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal stands modified to the said extend.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

Judge

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

Judge

al/-

True copy

P.S to Judge

Union of India v. P.A. Manikandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. P.A. Manikandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binutha Thomas Vs Union of India

Pookoya N.P Vs the Administrator, Union Territory

Rajesh Kumar G Vs State of Kerala

Director of Accounts (Postal) Vs N. Karthikeyan Pillai

S.Unnikrishnan Nair Vs Union of India

State of Kerala Vs Suneesh T.