AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Shri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :
“(i) To issue a suitable order or direction to call for record and set aside the orders dated 11.09.2009 and 09.06.2010 (Annexure A-1 & A-2).
(ii) To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service forthwith with all consequential benefits.
(iii) To issue any other suitable order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) To award the cost of the application in favour of the applicant from the respondents.”
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant while working as Gramin Dak Sewak Branch Post Master Tapani Account Office Baura was suspended and subsequently served a charge sheet dated 28.12.2004 by the respondents. The applicant denied the aforesaid charges and demanded the fair enquiry. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry was completed without following the prescribed rule as well as principle of natural justice. The applicant submitted an application during the enquiry and demanded some documents but Enquiry Officer has not provided the same. The applicant submitted another representation dated 26.05.2008 against the aforesaid enquiry report by stating the irregularities in the enquiry proceeding and requested to set aside the enquiry report. During the enquiry proceeding, Sri R.K. Dwivedi, Accountant Officer Mandal has admitted that due to appointment of the applicant as Assistant Teacher, D.A. was not allowed to him. The applicant made an application under R.T.I. Act and demanded information regarding employees working for both the posts G.D.S. B.P.M. and teacher. The information was given by stating that Sri Munnu Singh is working as G.D.S. B.P.M. as well as teacher. But no action was taken against him. It is submitted that the applicant has informed about the appointment as Assistant Teacher at the relevant time to the then Superintendent of Post Office. It is also submitted that the department had knowledge regarding appointment of applicant as Assistant Teacher because D.A. of G.D.S. B.P.M. was not given to him. The disciplinary authority passed the order dated 11.09.2009 for removal from service of the applicant. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order of removal from service, the applicant filed an appeal dated 30.11.2009 before the appellate authority. The appellate authority rejected the appeal of the applicant vide order dated 09.06.2010. Hence, this OA.
The respondents have strongly refuted the contention of applicant by filing counter affidavit in which they have submitted that the applicant was working on the post of ED B.P.M. Tapani from 02.12.1991. In the meantime, the applicant took appointment of Assistant Teacher in Primary School Akilabad-1 without resigning from the post of ED BPM Tapani. Thus, the working hours of Branch Post Office Tapani and Primary School Akilabad-1 was also clashing. The applicant began to draw the pay of both the post i.e. ED BPM Tapani and Assistant Teacher Akilabad. He did not intimate his appointment to Assistant Teacher to postal Department and afterwards rarely performed the duty of ED BPM. The Postmaster vide letter dated 26.10.2002 asked the applicant to intimate whether he was working in primary school for the post of teacher being ED BPM Tapani. The applicant intimated the Postmaster that he was working on the post of Assistant Teacher in primary school since 20.12.1999. Since the teacher are whole time employee of the State Government and the working hours of school Akilabad-1 and B.O. Tapani was clashing, the matter was entrusted for enquiry and it was found that the applicant was working on the post of Assistant Teacher in primary school Akilabad and working hours of the B.O. and school was clashing. As such the applicant was put off duty and a charge sheet was issued under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules 2001. The applicant denied the charges framed against him, therefore, it was ordered to enquire into the matter by providing full opportunity of defence to him. The inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report dated 28.04.2008 proving the charge against the applicant. Thereafter, the punishment of ‘Removal from Service’ was awarded to the applicant vide memo dated 11.09.2009. The applicant preferred an appeal against the punishment order, which was rejected by the appellate authority vide memo dated 09.06.2010 as devoid of merit. On the basis of above discussions, learned counsel for the respondents has requested to dismiss the OA.
In rejoinder affidavit, the applicant has reiterated the same facts as given in the OA and added that the applicant informed regarding his appointment as Assistant Teacher to the then S.P.Os (Sri A. Fatmi). During the inquiry proceeding, the accountant admitted this fact that due to appointment as Assistant Teacher D.A. was not allowed to applicant. The applicant performed his duty as B.P.M. before and after school time and there was no complaint by public. The postal department did not suffer from the work of the applicant. The postal department has power to change the duty hours. As per rule teacher can be appointed as E.D. employee in special circumstances whereas the applicant has already performed the duty of Branch post Master.
Considered the rival submissions and verified the documents available on record.
The applicant while working as ED BPM Tapani from 02.12.1991 has got appointment as Assistant Teacher and started working as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 20.12.1999. He has accepted this job without prior intimation to the postal authorities. When the respondents came to know about his appointment asked him through letter dated 26.10.2002 where he has working as Assistant Teacher. The applicant replied through letter dated 28.10.2002 that he is working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School since 20.12.1999. He further submitted that his working as Assistant Teacher has not affected his work as ED BPM. The verification of facts in the file shows that this is a fact that working hours of School and working hours of post office are clashing. The applicant has not produced any documents so show that he has intimated the fact of his joining as Assistant Teacher to his superior authorities. May be the office working hours of post office is re-adjustable but the applicant has not shown any document that he has not taken effort to get revised working hours for post office approved by his superior.
Perusal of inquiry report shows that inquiry was conducted in accordance with CCS (CCA) Rules and there is no lacuna in conducting the inquiry. The contention of the applicant is that S.P.Os (Sri A. Fatmi) who was given intimation by applicant was not called as witness but applicant would have produced him as defence witness. In his letter dated 28.10.2002, in which he has intimated his working as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 20.12.1999 does not find any mention of the above fact that he has already informed the then Superintendent of Post Office, Fatehpur (Sri A. Fatmi) so the plea taken in this OA appears to be an afterthought of the applicant. One Mr. Binda Prasad GDSMP has given statement that he is working as BO Tapani in absence of the applicant. It clearly shows that the applicant has made some arrangement for smooth conduct of work of post office, Tapani i.e why there are no complain. On the basis of charges held proved by the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority has taken decision to impose punishment of removal of applicant from the post of ED BPM which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. We do not find any lacuna in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority/ Appellate Authority.
On the basis of above discussions and verification of fact, it is clear that there is no merit in the OA filed by the applicant. The OA is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.