Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 328 (KER)

G. Sreedharan v. Union of India

2016-03-21

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, P.V.ASHA

body2016
JUDGMENT Smt. P.V. Asha, J. The petitioner is the applicant in O.A No.582 of 2006, in which he challenged Annexure-A4 order removing him from service and Annexures-A5 and A6 orders rejecting his appeal and revision respectively. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the O.A. The facts leading to the case are as follows. 2. The petitioner had been working as an Extra Departmental Delivery Agent, (subsequently designated as Gramin Dak Sevak), in Elampazhannur Post Office since 1982. He was put off duty from 7.4.2000 onwards. According to the petitioner, there were no complaints against him at the relevant time and he was kept in darkness as to the reasons for the put off duty. Thereafter on 27.6.2001, he was compelled to give a statement, under coercion and on dictation by the superior officers of Chadayamangalam Post Office. Annexure-A1 memo of charges along with statement of allegations was issued to him on 18.09.2001 under Rule 10(1) of Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rule 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the 2001 Rules'). Annexure-A1, which is part of Ext.P1, contained 3 articles of charges all in respect of treating registered letters addressed to the Headmaster, Elapampazhannur as delivered without getting signature of the addressee. The first charge was that, the petitioner while working as EDDA/MC, on 24.9.1999, treated TVM RL 9968 addressed to the Headmaster, Parayad LPS, Elampazhannoor, as delivered without obtaining the signature or thumb impression of the addressee or her authorised agent in the receipt to be signed by the addressee and thereby violated the provisions of Rule 127(1) of Postal Manual Volume VI Part III, and thus failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion of duty as envisaged in Rule 17 of P & T EP agents (C&S) Rules, 1961 (now Rule 21 of 2001 Rules,). Second charge related to the delivery of TVM RL 49533 on 5.2.2000 and third charge related to delivery of TVM RL 12152 on 24.3.2000, all to the Headmaster, Parayad LPS, Elampazhannoor. In the statement of imputation annexed to the articles of charges it was stated that, the Headmistress of the school Sr. Aleykutty Abraham, in her statement given before the Inspector of Post Offices on 26.6.2001, had stated that she did not receive the 3 postal articles, though she was on duty on 24.9.1999, 5.2.2000 and 24.3.2000 i.e all the 3 days on which the registered postal articles were alleged to have been delivered. Aleykutty Abraham, in her statement given before the Inspector of Post Offices on 26.6.2001, had stated that she did not receive the 3 postal articles, though she was on duty on 24.9.1999, 5.2.2000 and 24.3.2000 i.e all the 3 days on which the registered postal articles were alleged to have been delivered. She further stated that, the postman had not delivered to her any of these articles and her signature was also not obtained for the same. Further she disowned the signatures appearing on the receipts, shown as that of the addressee. She had given her specimen signature in separate sheet of paper. It was further alleged that the petitioner, who was entrusted with the registered postal articles on 24.9.1999, 5.2.2000 and 24.3.2000, addressed to the Headmaster, Parayad L.P.S, for delivery under acquittance in the B.O journal, treated those articles as delivered and returned the receipts signed by the addressee duly entered in his postman book on the respective dates. It was further stated that, the petitioner in his statement dated 27.6.2001 given in writing before the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Offices (SDP), Kottarakkara stated that, he received the said postal articles on the respective dates duly invoiced in the B.O slips of the respective dates from Chadayamangalam SO and those articles were entrusted to him for delivery on the respective dates under acquittance in the B.O journal. He returned the receipts duly signed by the addressee after duly entering the same in his postman book treating the registered letter as delivered. He further stated that, 4 persons from Ayur threatened him that, registered letters received from Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram and addressed to the Headmistress should be given to one 'Manaf' and that, due to their threat, he gave those registered letters to those persons and thereafter he himself signed on the receipts as to those postal articles. He stated that, he had not delivered the registered letter to the Headmistress, Parayad LPS and that the signature of addressee appearing in the receipt was not that of the Headmistress. On the basis of the aforesaid statements it was alleged that, the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as envisaged in Rule 17 of P & T ED Agents (C&S) Rules, 1964 (Rule 21 of 2001 Rules and acted in violation of Rule 127(1) of the Postal Manual Volume VI Part III. On the basis of the aforesaid statements it was alleged that, the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as envisaged in Rule 17 of P & T ED Agents (C&S) Rules, 1964 (Rule 21 of 2001 Rules and acted in violation of Rule 127(1) of the Postal Manual Volume VI Part III. The list of documents and list of witnesses were also annexed to the articles of charges, apart from the statement of allegations. 3. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Office (OS), South Sub Division, Kollam, was appointed as the inquiry officer. SWs 1 to 4 were examined and documents S1 to S15 were marked on the side of the Department. The petitioner got himself examined as DW1 on 19.3.2002. The statement obtained from the Headmistress was marked as S1 and statement given by the petitioner on 27.6.2001 was marked as S15. Written briefs were submitted by the Presenting Officer as well as the delinquent employee - the petitioner. Thereafter, the inquiry officer filed Annexure-A2 report dated 27.5.2002, finding the petitioner guilty of all the 3 charges. A copy of Annexure-A2 inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his objections against the inquiry report as per Annexure-A3 on 30.10.2002. In this representation as well as in his written brief, the petitioner's case was that, S15 statement was one obtained under coercion on dictation by his superior officers at the time of preliminary inquiry and that the evidence adduced during the course of the inquiry alone can be relied on in proof of the charges levelled against him; in his self examination, he had denied the statements in S15. He stated that the signatures in the receipts were signed by the addressee herself; there was no independent witness to corroborate the version of the Headmistress. He stated that the signature should have been sent for expert opinion. He therefore requested to exonerate him from the charges. He further stated that, he was the only earning member of his family consisting of his wife, 2 daughters and aged mother and he does not own any landed property. He therefore requested to take a lenient view and to reinstate him in service. 4. The disciplinary authority thereafter passed Annexure-A4 order on 3.2.2002 agreeing with the findings of the inquiry authority and awarding a punishment of dismissal from service. He therefore requested to take a lenient view and to reinstate him in service. 4. The disciplinary authority thereafter passed Annexure-A4 order on 3.2.2002 agreeing with the findings of the inquiry authority and awarding a punishment of dismissal from service. The disciplinary authority found that, the contention raised by the petitioner regarding S15 statement and the request of the petitioner to seek expert opinion were untenable. As the charges found proved against the petitioner were serious in nature, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that, the petitioner was not fit to be retained in service and ordered his removal with immediate effect. The petitioner submitted an appeal before the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam and the appeal was dismissed as per Annexure-A5 order dated 31.7.2003. The Revision Petition filed before the Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle also resulted in dismissal as per Annexure-A6 order. The O.A was filed challenging the orders of removal and the rejection of the appeal and revision against it. 5. The respondents had filed Ext.P2 reply statement before the Central Administrative Tribunal ('C.A.T' for short) in tune with the findings in the inquiry report and the impugned orders. They produced the specimen signature of the Headmistress and the disputed signatures appeared in the receipts as Exts.R3 and R4. The petitioner thereupon filed Ext.P3 rejoinder. The respondents had filed an additional reply statement stating that the petitioner was put off duty on detection of the fraudulent delivery of registered letters after the Passport Officer complained in Annexure-R6 letter of 3/2000 addressed to the Headmistress stating that, the delivery of postal articles to the addressees mentioned therein was suspected and that the issuance of the passports in respect of those persons were kept withheld, for want of her reports about them; she was requested to furnish the results of her enquiry in respect of them, within two weeks. It was stated in the reply statement that, the Sub Divisional Inspector, after inquiry, reported that, Sri Manaf whose name was mentioned by the applicant in S15 was running a bogus travel agency; pointing out that the petitioner did not mention the name of person to whom the letters were delivered, as he was having nexus with the person to whom the registered letters were delivered. The C.A.T, after considering the rival contentions, found that the inquiry officer himself had dealt with the objections raised by the petitioner against the admissibility of S15 statement and his contention as to the requirement of expert evidence with respect to the signature found in the receipts. The C.A.T, found that the findings rendered on the basis of evidence on record and the punishment awarded based on such finding did not require interference and hence dismissed the O.A. 6. This Original Petition is filed aggrieved by the dismissal of the O.A. We heard Sri K. Abdul Jawad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri T. Sanjay, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents. Sri Abdul Jawad vehemently contended that, there was absolutely no evidence to come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. According to him, the petitioner was put off duty on 7.4.2000 without assigning any reason at a time when there were no complaints against the petitioner. It was after a period of 15 months that, a statement was obtained from him under coercion, on dictation by the superior officers. It is on the basis of that statement given outside the inquiry, that the charges were said to be proved and punishment was imposed. According to him, such a statement taken under coercion, in the preliminary inquiry cannot have any evidentiary value. It is also contended that even assuming that the charges were proved, the punishment awarded was highly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. A poor ED agent who was depending on his meager income received from the employment was deprived of his livelihood on account of the drastic procedure adopted by the respondents at the fag end of service career. According to him, the petitioner had at the very first opportunity pointed out that the statement was not given voluntarily and he had only put his signature in tune with the directions of the superior officers. Regarding the signature of the Headmistress also, it was stated that, as long as the signature found in the receipts were not found proved scientifically as one that of Headmistress, he cannot be punished. The learned counsel also relied on the judgments in P.B. Rocho v. Union of India [ 1984 KLT 590 ] regarding the standard of proof required in departmental action and the judgments in Madikal Service Co-op. The learned counsel also relied on the judgments in P.B. Rocho v. Union of India [ 1984 KLT 590 ] regarding the standard of proof required in departmental action and the judgments in Madikal Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Labour Court [Vol.71 FJR 322 (page 328) and State of J&K v. Abdul Hamid Mir & Ors. [1994 (1) LLJ 586 (J&K) in support of his contention that the statement obtained in the preliminary inquiry cannot be relied on, in order to prove the charges and to award punishment. According to him, only a statement obtained other than during the course of the inquiry will not have any evidentiary value and an incriminating statement retracted by the delinquent employee cannot be used against him. 7. On the other hand, Sri. T. Sanjay, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel, refuted all these contentions referring to the evidence on record and the settled legal principles limiting the jurisdiction of this court in departmental action. It is pointed out that the statement in the written brief submitted by petitioner that he used to deliver the registered article to persons other than addressees, indicates the irresponsible attitude of the petitioner. It was pointed out that the petitioner did not have any complaint regarding the procedure adopted in the inquiry. According to him, there is sufficient legal evidence on record, based on which the inquiry officer found him guilty. It is also pointed out that, the petitioner did not file any complaint before any of the authorities including the respondents that he had to furnish any statement under coercion. The petitioner was discharging the duties of an ED agent and in the course of his duties, he should have delivered letters to the proper addressees in accordance with law. In this case, it is for the articles sent from the passport authorities that the petitioner submitted receipts as having delivered to the proper addressee without delivering it to the Headmistress of the school, to whom it was addressed. 8. The learned counsel invited our attention to the photograph of the specimen signature of the Headmistress and the disputed signatures in the receipts, which are produced as Exts.R3 and R4 respectively along with the reply statement of the respondent. 8. The learned counsel invited our attention to the photograph of the specimen signature of the Headmistress and the disputed signatures in the receipts, which are produced as Exts.R3 and R4 respectively along with the reply statement of the respondent. It was pointed out, as stated in the counter affidavit, that these signatures in the receipts did not have any similarity with the specimen signature of the Headmistress and no reasonable person would come to a conclusion that an expert opinion is necessary in the matter. The Headmistress had during the course of her examination, denied the plea put forward by the petitioner that the articles were delivered to her; she disowned the signatures found on the receipts and furnished her specimen signature. 9. Having regard to the contentions on either side, it is seen that the petitioner does not have a case that there was any procedural infirmity in conducting the inquiry. The contention of the petitioner that there is no evidence cannot be accepted, because he himself had admitted that the postal articles were not delivered to the Headmistress. At any rate, it can only be regarded as a case where there is some evidence. That apart, there is S15, a statement which was taken by SW1 who was examined in the enquiry and the petitioner had an opportunity to cross examine him. Though the petitioner denied some part of the statement in S15, it cannot be said that the action against him is without any evidence. 10. The jurisdiction of this Court to deal with the departmental enquiry and the punishment awarded by the competent authorities is very limited. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. There cannot either be an adjudication on merits or a re-appreciation of evidence. Regarding the power of the High Court under Article 226, the apex court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 . held as follows: "12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. held as follows: "12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as Appellate Authority to re appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case." The very same principle was followed and reiterated in various judgments including S.R. Tewari v. Union of India [ (2013) 6 SCC 602 ]. As rightly contended by Sri. Sanjay it is settled law that, only if there is procedural infirmity or statutory violation of any rule or when it is a case of no evidence that, this Court can interfere. This Court is not expected to act like an appellate authority and re-appreciate the evidence on record and to enter upon its own findings. Sanjay it is settled law that, only if there is procedural infirmity or statutory violation of any rule or when it is a case of no evidence that, this Court can interfere. This Court is not expected to act like an appellate authority and re-appreciate the evidence on record and to enter upon its own findings. In this case, the appellate authority, the revisional authority as well as the Tribunal have entered into findings against the petitioner, upholding the orders passed by the disciplinary/appointing authority. It is, on the basis of the findings against the petitioner that, the punishment was awarded. As far as the quantum of punishment is concerned also, this Court cannot interfere with the authority of disciplinary authority when all these matters have already been considered by the statutory authorities. We find that the Tribunal has considered all these aspects and arrived at its finding in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in its findings. 11. The judgments relied on by the petitioner, it is seen that, those were cases where statements were taken behind the back of the petitioner and outside the inquiry. In the judgment in Madikal Service Co-operative Society (supra) no inquiry was conducted and the delinquent employee was not given any opportunity to examine or cross examine the witnesses. In the judgment in State of J & K v. Abdul Hamid (supra), the charges were held proved based on the statements taken in the preliminary inquiry. We do not have any doubt on the position regarding the distinction as to the standard of proof required in a criminal case and that in a departmental inquiry. But in the present case, the position is different. We have already found that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence, cross examine the witnesses as also the opportunity of hearing. We have also found that the punishment was awarded on the basis of the findings entered upon and the evidence adduced in the enquiry and the circumstances arising in this case are not similar to those in the judgments relied on by the petitioner. 12. In these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the C.A.T. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed.