AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This application has been preferred to seek the following relief:
“8.1. Impugned Charge Memorandum dated 29.09.2021 (Annexure A1) be set aside and quashed.
8.2.Impugned Inquiry Report dated 14.03.2023 along with letter dated 16.03.2023(Annexure A2) be set aside and quashed.
8.3.Impugned penalty order dated 20.04.2023(Annexure A3) be set aside and quashed.
8.4.The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to declare that the period of suspension of the applicant w.e.f. 18.01.2021 to 04.01.2023 is wholly unjustified in terms of DOPT OM dated 03.12.1985.
8.5.The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension of the applicant w.e.f. 18.01.2021 to 04.01.2023 as on duty for all purposes and release full pay and allowances in terms of DOPT OM dated 03.12.1985, by adjusting the subsistence allowance already paid.
8.6.Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case.”
The brief of the case as aver by learned counsel for the applicant are that, applicant while working as Postal Assistant, Agartala HPO (under suspension), was issued with an impugned Charge Memorandum dated 29.09.2021 under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 proposing to hold an inquiry for handing over 1 (one) sheet of CPS on P.V. Narshimha Rao to Romila Reang, PA and incharge of Philately Bureau on 07.09.2020 through hand to hand register (Stock at Philately Branch Register) before release of the philately stamps without verifying the date of release.
According to applicant, Smt. Romila Reang is the incharge of the Stamps and she had admitted the misplacement and so there is no scope for proceeding against the applicant.
Inquiry Officer was appointed on 15.11.2021 and inquiry report was submitted on 14.03.2023 with letter dated 16.03.2023. In the said report, it has been stated that the charge has been held to be proved with contributory negligence but the respondents without examination/proving of documents submitted the report, which is against the settled law in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors[(2009) 2 SCC 570], violating Rule 14(18) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 [DOPT OM dated 18.2.2015 and Ministry of Finance & Anr. v. S.B. Ramesh[(1998) 3 SCC 227], 14(23)(i)(c) & (d), 14(24), etc. the inquiry being perverse and baseless.
Based on the inquiry report, the Disciplinary authority issued the impugned penalty order dated 20.04.2023 imposing the penalty of reduction by one stage for a period of 3 months without considering the grounds raised by the applicant in reply to the inquiry report and penalty has been imposed inspite of holding that there is no direct involvement of the applicant in loss of CPS on P.V. Narsimha Rao from Philately Bureau.
According to applicant, there is no breach of duty on his part and no violation of any rule/executive instruction/extant practice.
Rule 14(24) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and the DOPT OM dated 08.12.2017 mandates for completion of the inquiry and submission of the inquiry report from the date of the appointment of the IO within 6 months. In the case of the applicant the IO was appointed on 15.11.2021 and the inquiry report was issued on 14.03.2023, the inquiry proceedings continued for about 1 year and 4 months. It is stated that delay in conclusion of the inquiry proceedings is violative of Rule 14(24) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and the DOPT OM dated 08.12.2017. It is stated that the aforesaid delay causing violation of the executive instructions, statutory rules and the settled position of law has vitiated the entire disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant further avers that, malice and malafide against the applicant is patent. His suspension has been extended much beyond 3 months upto 8 months till issuance of the chargesheet and even thereafter till 04.01.2023. Even after issuance of the chargesheet dated 29.09.2021 no reasoned order was issued for extension of suspension. He was continued under suspension for long period of about 2 years from 18.01.2021 and transferred to Amarpur SO on 04.01.2023 after revocation of suspension on 04.01.2023. Prolong continuation of disciplinary proceedings is against the settled position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar High Court of Delhi and Anr. [(2015) 16 SCC 415].
For that, in terms of the DOPT OM dated 03.12.1985 the period of suspension of the applicant w.e.f. 18.01.2021 to 04.01.2023 is wholly unjustified and the applicant is liable to be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension by passing a suitable order by the respondents under FR 54-В.
Respondents have stated that the applicant, the then Postal Assistant, Agartala Head Post Office (HPO) received the Commemorative Postage Stamps on P.V. Narasimha Rao on 04.09.2020 and on 07.09.2020, he handed over 01 (one) sheet of CPS to Smt. Romila Reang, Postal Assistant along with other stamps. These CPS were supplied through an entry in the hand - to - hand register to the PA Philately Bureau of Agartala HO before the date of release of the said philately stamps (CPS) without verifying the date of release. Among these CPS of P.V. Narasimha Rao, 04 (four) numbers of stamps were reported missing/misplaced/short or sold at Agartala Philately Bureau. The loss/short/missing of 04 (four) numbers of CPS on P V Narasimha Rao before the release has partially resulted from the gross negligence of the Applicant in performing his official duty and such negligence can be treated as a serious offence which can cause damage of reputation of this esteemed Department. When the Applicant was not aware of the date of release of the CPS, he should have inquired and seek information from the Postmaster, Agartala HPO or should have checked from the year wise stamp issue calendar given in the India Post (Department of Posts) website where the data is readily available and referred for this purpose. Negligence of duty cannot be excused simply by claiming ignorance when handling such responsible and sensitive products of the Department.
The Applicant was alleged to have violated the instructions contained in point 32 of Chapter-III (Stamps) of Handbook of Philately and Rule 58 of P&T Financial Handbook Volume-I and thus failed to maintain devotion towards his duty which is in contravention of Rules 3 (1) (ii) and 3(1) (iii) respectively of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
That on the basis of said charge sheet, a disciplinary proceeding under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was conducted against the Applicant and the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., Superintendent of Posts, Agartala Division found lack of responsibility and gross negligence in performing duty in part of the official. He was awarded penalty and his pay was reduced by one stage from Rs. 35,300/- (Cell-12) to 34,300/- (Cell-11) in the time scale / pay matrix of level 4, for a period of three (03) months with effect from 01.05.2023 without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension. It was further directed that he will earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of the period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. Charges against the Applicant were proven by the I.O. with contributory negligence.
That due to administrative reasons, some time was necessary for completion of the disciplinary proceeding as per guidelines issued by the Department of Posts. After completion of the disciplinary proceedings, order regarding pay and allowances of the Applicant and the mode of treating the period of suspension was issued. During his suspension period, the Applicant was paid subsistence allowance.
Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the appeal dated 02.06.2023 is pending decision. There has been severe delay in completion of disciplinary proceedings, charge sheet was issued on 29.09.2021 and penalty order was issued on 20.04.2023. His suspension has been revoked and the applicant has a right to get the full pay and allowance for the said period when he was placed under suspension.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records and pleadings.
It is noted that chargesheet was issued on 29.09.2021 and he was given censure, against that, he has filed an appeal before the competent authority which is still pending final decision. He was suspended for two years, thereafter, his suspension was revoked and he was given only minor penalty after issuing a major penalty chargesheet.
We have come to the conclusion that since the suspension period was already revoked by the respondents by order dated 04.01.2023, we deem it fit to direct the respondents to regularise the suspension period w.e.f. 18.01.2021 to 04.01.2023 and release the salary after deducting/adjusting the suspension allowance already paid to the applicant, within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
The appeal preferred by the applicant dated 02.06.2023 (Annexure a/28) against the penalty order is pending before the competent authority. So we direct the Appellate Authority to decide on the pending appeal within the same period of 03 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
With the above directions, the O.A is disposed of. No costs. Pending M.As, if any, also stands disposed of.