Dismissed

Union of India, v. M.K.Lohithakshan

Kerala HC9 Jul 2020OP (CAT)/117/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order that remitted a disciplinary case for re-consideration of penalty. The Court found the penalty of disengagement grossly disproportionate to the charges but declined interference, leaving it to the disciplinary authority to pass fresh orders considering age and service.

What did the court decide?

None before this Court; the matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority to pass fresh orders.

Union of India, Vs M.K.Lohithakshan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1942

¶7

OP (CAT).No.117 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25-11-2019 IN OA 1131/2014 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶9

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN THE O.A.:

¶10

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶11

2 THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶12

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS, IRINJALAKUDA DIVISION, IRINJALAKUDA.

¶13

4 THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS, POSTAL STORES DEPOT, AD-HOC RECRUITING AUTHORITY, THRISSUR-680004.

¶14

5 THE POST MASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI-682020.

¶15

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:

¶16

M.K.LOHITHAKSHAN

¶17

AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.KUNJIKANDAN, WORKING AS GDSMD (REMOVED FROM SERVICE), PADINJARE VEMBALLUR BRANCH POST OFFICE, EDAVILANGU SO, KODUNGALLUR, IRINJALAKKUDA POSTAL DIVISION, RESIDING AT MIRYIL HOUSE, PADINJARE VEMBALLUR P.O., KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJI R1 BY ADV. SHRI.VISWAJITH C.K R1 BY ADV. SMT.GANGA A.SANKAR R1 BY ADV. SHRI.CHACKOCHEN VITHAYATHIL

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SRI. M.R. HARIRAJ

¶21

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP (CAT) No.117/2020

-2-

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 9^th Day of July, 2020

¶26

Gopinath P., J:

¶27

Respondents in O.A No.1131/2014 dated 25-11-2019 have filed this O.P (CAT) challenging the final order dated 25-112019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in that O.A.

¶28

The present respondent was working as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Carrier under the Irinjalakuda Postal Division from 23-02-1981. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under the applicable Rules namely the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. Those proceedings ended in a penalty of disengagement from service. An appeal preferred by the respondent before the competent authority was also rejected. Thereupon he filed Original Application No.1131/2014 before the Tribunal challenging the orders in question. That O.A was allowed and the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back wages and all consequential benefits. That order of the Tribunal was challenged before this court through O.P (CAT) No.30/2019. This resulted in Ext.P7 judgment dated 10-04-2019, through which the Original

¶29

OP (CAT) No.117/2020

¶30

-3-

¶31

Application was remitted to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench for fresh consideration on merits. On a consideration of the matter following the remit, the Tribunal had found that the procedure adopted for imposition of penalty cannot be faulted in any manner. However, the Tribunal found that the punishment imposed on the respondent was grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. Accordingly the Tribunal set aside the order imposing penalty as well as the order rejecting the appeal filed by the respondent and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to re-consider the penalty imposed on the respondent taking into account the age and service of the applicant and the long period that he has already been out of work. It was further directed that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. This order of the Tribunal dated 25-11-2019 is now challenged before us through the above O.P (CAT).

¶32

We have heard Sri. P. Vijayakumar, Assistant Solicitor General of India for the petitioners. He would submit that considering the charges levelled against the respondent the penalty of disengagement from service imposed under the relevant Rules is not at all disproportionate to the charges

¶33

OP (CAT) No.117/2020

¶34

-4-

¶35

levelled against the respondent. He would submit that only in cases where the penalty is found is shockingly disproportionate that the court / Tribunal should interfere with such penalty. He would contend that since the procedural requirements had been found to have been fully complied with, the Tribunal should not have interfered with the order of penalty.

¶36

We have considered the contentions raised and the materials placed on record. We have perused the articles of charge issued to the respondent. We have also considered findings recorded in Annexure-A1 order dated 07-08-2013 through which the penalty was imposed on the respondent. We have also perused Annexure-A2 order of the Appellate Authority and also the record of enquiry dated 22-03-2013. The Articles of charges levelled against the respondent are as follows:

¶37

“Article-I – Sri. M.K. Lohithakshan, while working as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer, Padinjare Vemballur on 14-11-2008, failed to effect delivery of an ordinary letter addressed to Dhanya P.P., daughter of P.S. Premadasan, Panangattu House, P. Vemballur P.O. effected delivery only on 26-11-2008, furnished wrong remarks during the intervening period and thereby violated the provisions of Rule 115 (1) of Postal Manual Volume-VI Part-II, 6^th Edition and thus failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty contravening the provisions of Rule 21 of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001.

¶38

OP (CAT) No.117/2020

¶39

-5-

¶40

Article-II - Sri. M.K. Lohithakshan, while working as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer, Padinjare Vemballur on 02-02-2009 failed to obey orders of Inspector Posts, Kodungallur Sub Division vide Memo No.BO/P.Vemballur dated 31-01-2009, relieving him from mail conveyance duties and rearranging duties of the GDSMD of the office with effect from 02-02-2009, and thus failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty contravening the provisions of Rule 21 of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001

¶41

Article-III - Sri. M.K. Lohithakshan, while working as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer, Padinjare Vemballur on 02-02-2009 misbehaved with his superiors, Sri. Bahuleyan and Sri. C. Balakrishnan, Mail Overseers of Kodungallur Sub Division on a visit to Padinjare Vemballur, made derogatory remarks on officers of the department and left the office without permission, thus failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty contravening the provisions of Rule 21 of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001.”

¶42

We are clear in our mind that the penalty imposed on the respondent is grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. The authorities have acted harshly in the case of the respondent. It is not seen that the respondent was a habitual offender. We do not think that the circumstances warranted the imposition of penalty of disengagement from service. The respondent had a long unblemished service from 23-03-1981. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him sometime in 2009. We are of the opinion that the punishment imposed on him is totally disproportionate to the levelled charges. We accordingly refuse interference with the order of

¶43

OP (CAT) No.117/2020

¶44

-6-

¶45

the Central Administrative Tribunal and dismiss the O.P (CAT) with the above observations. The disciplinary authority shall pass fresh orders taking note of the observations in this judgment.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

AMG

OP (CAT) No.117/2020

-7-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶55

EXHIBIT	P1	NIL
EXHIBIT	P1(A1)	TRUE COPY NO.ASP(PTG	OF THE PENALTY ORDER MEMO )/ADA/1/2012 DATED 7.8.2013.
EXHIBIT	P1(A2)	TRUE COPY NO.BB/APPE ISSUED BY	OF APPELLATE ORDER AL/03/2013-14 DATED 28.11.2013 THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P1(A3)	TRUE COPY 2.12.2010.	OF THE MEMO NO.PM/ADA/MKL DATED
EXHIBIT	P1(A4)	TRUE COPY 6.12.2010 AUTHORITY.	OF THE MEMO NO.PM/ADA/MKL DATED ISSUED BY THE ADHOC APPOINTING
EXHIBIT	P1(A5)	TRUE COPY SUBMITTED	OF WRITTEN BRIEF DATED 6.1.2013 BY THE APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT	P1(A6)	TRUE COPY O.A.27/201 TRIBUNAL.	OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 8.4.2013 IN 2 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE
EXHIBIT	P1(A7)	TRUE COPY	OF INQUIRY REPORT DATED 22.3.2013.
EXHIBIT	P1(A8)	TRUE COPY DATED 29.4	OF LETTER NO.ASP(PTG)/ADA/1/2012 .2013.
EXHIBIT	P1(A9)	TRUE COPY 12.6.2013 ADHOC DISC	OF WRITTEN REPRESENTATION DATED MADE BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE IPLINARY AUTHORITY.
EXHIBIT	P1(A10)	TRUE COPY SUBMITTED	OF THE APPEAL DATED 2.9.2013 BY THE APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY O.A.NO.113 (PAGES 90-	OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN 1/2014, BEFORE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH 117).
EXHIBIT	P2(R1)	TRUE COPY	OF EXHIBIT P-13.
EXHIBIT	P2(R2)	TRUE COPY	OF EXHIBIT P-14.
EXHIBIT	P2(R3)	TRUE COPY	OF DEPOSITION OF PW-5.
EXHIBIT	P2(R4)	TRUE COPY	OF DEPOSITION OF PW-6.
EXHIBIT	P2(R5)	TRUE COPY	OF DEPOSITION OF PW-7.

¶56

OP (CAT) No.117/2020 -8- EXHIBIT P2(R6) TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW-8. EXHIBIT P2(R7) TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW-3. EXHIBIT P2(R8) TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW-4. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER DATED 10.5.2017 FILED BY THE APPLICANT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED 8.8.2017 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.8.2018 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A.NO.1131/2014. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL PETITION (CAT) NO.30/2019 DATED 30.11.2018 FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 10.4.2019 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DATED 25.11.2019.

Union of India, v. M.K.Lohithakshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India, v. M.K.Lohithakshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohandas.K Vs State of Kerala

The Medical Director, Kannur Dental College Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences

Thanvi Shajee Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

The State of Kerala Vs Maria Goretty T.S.

Divya S.J. Vs State of Kerala

The Manager, Amlps, Vs Jose Pappalil