A SUDHAKAR Vs. POST MASTER GENERAL HYDRABAD
LAWS(SC)-2006-3-88
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
March 24,2006
A. Sudhakar
Appellant
VERSUS
Post Master General, Hyderabad And Anr.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
KHEM CHAND V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]HOMBE GOWDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. OM PRAKASH GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
A SANJEEVI NAIDU VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
SURJIT GHOSH VS. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK [REFERRED TO]
BALBIR CHAND VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [REFERRED TO]
HEMALATHA GARGYA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VS. SYED HUSSAIN [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF BHURKUNDA COLLIERY OF CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD VS. MANAGEMENT OF BHURKUNDA COLLIERY OF CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD [REFERRED TO]
SYNDICATE BANK VS. VENKATESH GURURAO KURATI [REFERRED TO]
L K VARMA VS. H M T LTD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. SHEO SHANKER LAL SRIVASTAVA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD VS. VIRENDRA LAL [LAWS(SC)-2013-10-5] [REFERRED TO]MANAGEMENT TAMIL NADU STATE TRANPORT CORPORATION KUMBAKONAM DIVISION III LTD VS. S VENKATRAMAN [LAWS(MAD)-2011-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
K.K. ARYA VS. M.P. MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN [LAWS(MPH)-2012-12-54] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED ASHFAQ VS. STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-9-127] [REFERRED TO]
A.V.SHANMUGA SUNDARAM VS. CHAIRPERSON & MANAGING DIRECTOR [LAWS(MAD)-2012-8-214] [REFERRED TO]
PROTIM PATNI DEY VS. OIL INDIA LTD [LAWS(GAU)-2021-4-28] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. AMITABH THAKUR AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-295] [REFERRED]
YOGITA SWAROOP VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2014-12-36] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT KR GOSWMAI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2012-2-72] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH CHANDER KALRA VS. BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2013-4-396] [REFERRED TO]
G.R. SONI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2009-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KAPOOR VS. ALLAHABAD BANK KOLKATA THROU ITS CHAIRMAN AND M.D. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
R SUNDARAMURTHY VS. JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOP SOCIETIES [LAWS(MAD)-2010-1-182] [REFERRED TO]
HARJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2007-2-59] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND REGIONAL CO-OP OIL SEEDSGROWERS UNION LTD VS. SHAILESHKUMAR HARSHADBHAI SHAH [LAWS(SC)-2006-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
Ram Balak Dusadh VS. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [LAWS(JHAR)-2006-7-106] [REFERRED TO]
K ARUMUGHAM VS. DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING [LAWS(MAD)-2007-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-11-74] [REFERRED TO]
H.P. KINDO VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2011-3-96] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH DANCHAND WASWANI VS. YUSUFBHAI MUKHTAR AMIR VARAWALLA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-9-64] [REFERRED TO]
PREM CHAND SHARMA VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
N K TRIPATHI VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-9-112] [REFERRED TO]
GAMBHIR CHAND VS. SAINIK SCHOOL SOCIETY [LAWS(HPH)-2007-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHDEV SINGH KARKHAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2015-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
SEEMA JAIN VS. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT [LAWS(RAJ)-2023-7-120] [REFERRED TO]
UTPAL RAJKUMAR VS. DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY & ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-2-127] [REFERRED TO]
MUKUT CH. DAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2011-11-64] [REFERRED TO]
TRUSTEE AHMEDABAD JESUITS SCHOOL SOCIETY & 1 ORS VS. BIJU JOSE VADAKEN & 3 ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2016-9-99] [REFERRED]
R.K. MITTAL VS. M.P. MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LTD. [LAWS(MPH)-2012-12-135] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGIRAT SHARMA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-150] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP SUBHASH PARATE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2006-8-53] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHIKALA TRIPATHI AND ANR. VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-8-217] [REFERRED TO]
W B COUNCIL OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION VS. SHYAMANAND JHA [LAWS(CAL)-2007-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF A P VS. N RAMANAIAH [LAWS(SC)-2009-5-85] [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY MIN OF DEFENCE VS. PRABHASH CHANDRA MIRDHA [LAWS(SC)-2012-5-66] [REFERRED TO]
AIR INDIA LTD VS. SHASHIKALA JATAV [LAWS(BOM)-2010-9-128] [REFERRED TO]
P KARUPPUSAMY VS. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2007-1-243] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANT PRABHUBHAI PATEL VS. DINESH MILLS LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2006-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
UMAKANT DWIVEDI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2011-11-31] [REFERRED TO]
SHEETAL KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2015-10-65] [REFERRED TO]
NORTH EASTERN KARNATAKA R T CORPN VS. ASHAPPA [LAWS(SC)-2006-5-24] [REFERRED TO]
RAJBHADUR KHARE VS. MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK PRADHAN KARYALAYA [LAWS(MPH)-2012-9-268] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH BHALLA, ELECTRICIAN, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, MANDI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2012-11-558] [REFERRED]
DHYANESHWAR SOPANRAO BHANDARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-11-35] [REFERRED TO]
NABIN MOHAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2013-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
A.Z. KHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2013-6-7] [REFERRED TO]
BISWANATH BHATTACHARJEE VS. UNITED BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2008-12-47] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH SON OF B KHANNA VS. KARNATAKA LOK-AYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES, BENGALURU [LAWS(KAR)-2019-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJATHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-9-63] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA KUMAR PANDEY VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2011-9-114] [REFERRED TO]
NUTAN VIDARBHA SHIKSHAN MANDAL VS. PRESIDING OFFICER SCHOOL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(BOM)-2006-11-145] [REFERRED TO]
VEERENDRA MOHAN (LT COL ) VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(J&K)-2007-4-25] [REFERRED TO]
State of Jharkhand VS. Rameshwar Jha [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-11-100] [REFERRED TO]
INDU BHUSHAN DWIVEDI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(JHAR)-2007-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT VS. MANOJ KUMAR KHATRI [LAWS(MPH)-2022-9-74] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR GOVIL VS. NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(RAJ)-2023-1-98] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA LAL SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-8-153] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRAKASH TRADEMEN VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(MPH)-2008-1-78] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP SUBHASH PARATE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2006-8-132] [REFERRED TO]
P D AGRAWAL VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2006-4-38] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. SURESH PUNIA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-111] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK JOSHI VS. ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2023-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
S.B. Sinha, J. -
(1.)The Appellant was working as a Sub-Post Master Marrimandal. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Hanamkonda where for a chargesheet was issued on 13.8.1992. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. He was found guilty of commission of the first charge and a part of third charge but he was exonerated in respect of the second charge.
(2.)Although the chargesheet was issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices although he was otherwise the disciplinary authority in respect of the Appellant, but as he was appointed to the Lower Selection Grade by the Director of Postal Services in the year 1983 prior to divisionalization of Lower Selection Grade Cadre which took place from July, 1989, upon completion of the enquiry, the records were forwarded to the Director of Postal Services being the appointing authority. As the Director of Postal Services was both appointing and disciplinary authority in respect of the Appellant herein, he took into consideration the aforementioned report of the Enquiry Officer and by an order dated 7.3.1994 imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement of the Appellant from services. He preferred an appeal there against before the Post Master General which was dismissed by an order dated 8.4.1994. An Original Application thereafter was filed by the Appellant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed.
(3.)The contentions of the Appellant before the said Tribunal were:
(i) The Superintendent of Post Offices being the designated disciplinary authority, the imposition of a major penalty by the Director of Postal Services was illegal.
(ii) The enquiry report was vitiated in law as the Enquiry Officer acted in a post-haste manner in proceeding to hold the enquiry without giving proper opportunities to the Appellant to appoint an officer to assist him in the departmental enquiry as a result whereof he was gravely prejudiced.
(iii) An additional document, a copy whereof had not been annexed with the chargesheet was taken into consideration while examining a witness.
(iv) So far as third charge is concerned, only purported negligence on his part, having been proved, the quantum of punishment was disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct.
(2.)Although the chargesheet was issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices although he was otherwise the disciplinary authority in respect of the Appellant, but as he was appointed to the Lower Selection Grade by the Director of Postal Services in the year 1983 prior to divisionalization of Lower Selection Grade Cadre which took place from July, 1989, upon completion of the enquiry, the records were forwarded to the Director of Postal Services being the appointing authority. As the Director of Postal Services was both appointing and disciplinary authority in respect of the Appellant herein, he took into consideration the aforementioned report of the Enquiry Officer and by an order dated 7.3.1994 imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement of the Appellant from services. He preferred an appeal there against before the Post Master General which was dismissed by an order dated 8.4.1994. An Original Application thereafter was filed by the Appellant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed.
(3.)The contentions of the Appellant before the said Tribunal were:
(i) The Superintendent of Post Offices being the designated disciplinary authority, the imposition of a major penalty by the Director of Postal Services was illegal.
(ii) The enquiry report was vitiated in law as the Enquiry Officer acted in a post-haste manner in proceeding to hold the enquiry without giving proper opportunities to the Appellant to appoint an officer to assist him in the departmental enquiry as a result whereof he was gravely prejudiced.
(iii) An additional document, a copy whereof had not been annexed with the chargesheet was taken into consideration while examining a witness.
(iv) So far as third charge is concerned, only purported negligence on his part, having been proved, the quantum of punishment was disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.