P K KUTTAPPAN Vs. P PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT while working as Extra Depart-mental Delivery Agent, Parakkadavu under Paravur Postal Sub Division was put off duty w.e.f. 21.2.97 FN under Rule 9 of the P & T Extra Departmental (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964 as per A-1 memo dated 21.2.97 of the second respondent. Subsequently A-2 memo dated 26.3.97 of the second respondent was issued to him proposing to take action against him under Rule 8 of the P & T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules 1964. Applicant sent A-3 letter dated 7.4.97 requesting for further time to submit his Statement of defence. By A-4 memo dated 2.4.97 second respondent appointed first respondent as the Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges framed against the APPLICANT. Applicant suhmitted A-5 written Statement dated 15.4.97. Preliminary Hearing of the case was held on 9.5.97. The APPLICANT appointed a Defence Assistant. Applicant by A-7 representation dated 14.5.97 made a requestto furnish him with copies of the Inspcction Report on Parakkadavu BO of the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Office. Paravur in 1990 and 1996. The Departmental enquiry commended on 9.5.97 and concluded on 8.8.97. The first respondent forwarded a copy of the enquiry report under A-9 covering letter dated 9.10.97 to the APPLICANT directing him to submit representation if any within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same. Applicant sought further ten days time for submitting his representation against the enquiry report which was granled by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly APPLICANT submitted A-10 representation dated 20.12.97 to the 2nd respondent disciplinary authority. By A-11 proceedings dated 9.11.98 of the second respondent the APPLICANT was removed from servicc with immediate effect. Applicant filed A-12 revision petition to the third respondent on 13.9.98. The third respondent by A-13 order dated 28.12.98 rejected the revision petition. Aggrieved the APPLICANT has filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Respondents filed reply Statement resisting the claim of the applicant. According to them on enquiry into a public complaint the applicant while working as a Departmental Delivery Agent at Parakkadavu was prima facie found responsible for return of registcred and value payable articles with false remarks and non-delivery of ordinary articles. An enquiry under Rute 8 of the P & T ED Agents (Conduct &-Service) Rules 1964 consislent with the requirement of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India was held against the applicant and he was removed from service w.e.f. 9.1 .98. The applicant did not prefer any appeal but submitted a review petition to the Postmaster General, Kochi. The review petition was rejected by the reviewing authority. The Original Application has been filed against the punishment and review orders. The applicant was given reasonable opportunity to present his case A-12 order was a speaking order. The evidence as well as the gravity of the offence had been clearly diseussed in the A-12 order. The applicant withheld delivery of registered and value payable articles to the members of public recording false remarks in the order to wreak vengeance with them as he was not in good terms with the addressees. Such an act on the part of a public servant like the appliqant was very grave rendering him unfit to be retained in a public office. Therefore A-12 order could not be assailed for the reasons advanced by the applicant. A-1, A-2, A-9, A-11 and A-13 were issued after observing all the formalities prescribed under the relevant rules and for valid reasons. The applicant was not eligible for any of the reliefs prayed for and the O.A. was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) WE have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the rival pleadings and have perused the documents brought on record.