Allahabad High Court
Union Of India And 3 Others vs Rishipal Singh And Another on 31 August, 2015
Bench: Arun Tandon, Vijay Prakash Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 48808 of 2015
Petitioner :- Union Of India And 3 Others
Respondent :- Rishipal Singh And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Om,Sri Ashok Mehta
Counsel for Respondent :- S.K. Kushwaha
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Vijay Prakash Pathak,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Mehta, Senior Advocate, Addl. Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners and Sri S.K. Kushwaha, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 1. It is not necessary to issue notice to respondent no. 2.
Counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage without calling for any further affidavit, specifically in view of the order proposed to be passed today by the Court.
Union of India, the Director of Postal Services and the other officers have approached this Court against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad dated 13th May, 2015 passed in Original Application No. 330/01387/2014.
Under the order impugned the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that since in terms of the resolution of the Review Committee, extending the period of suspension, formal order of the competent authority, accepting the recommendation of the Review Committee, had not been communicated, the suspension stood revoked. The original application has accordingly been allowed.
Counsel for the Union submits that the Review Committee had met at regular interval strictly in accordance with Rule 10(6) of CCS/CCA Rules, 1965. The Committee, which comprises of three officers, had made resolution for the suspension of respondent no. 1 being extended from time to time. The last resolution for extension of the suspension of respondent no. 1 was made on 21st July, 2015. A copy of the resolution has been enclosed at page 41 of the present writ petition.
There is an issue between the petitioner and the respondent as to whether this resolution was communicated to the respondent or not, and as to whether any further orders are required to be made for accepting the recommendation of the Review Committee or not.
In our opinion Review Committee, comprising of officers, namely Director, Postal Services Bareilly Region, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bareilly Division, Superintendent of Post Offices, Saharanpur, out of which one of them is the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the decision of the Review Committee is admittedly binding upon the disciplinary authority.
We are further of the opinion that even if it is accepted that such decision has not been formally communicated to the respondent, it will not mean that the recommendation of the Review Committee has lost its efficacy. Mere non-communication of the recommendation of the Review Committee will not render the resolution as non est, inasmuch as communication is only a ministerial act. The recommendation of the Review Committee may be communicated now.
We may not enter into the other disputed issue of fact with regard to the communication of the order of the Review Committee. We leave the issue at that stage.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the departmental enquiry against respondent no. 1 shall be brought to its logical end at the earliest, preferably within eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the disciplinary authority. For a period of eight weeks from today suspension of respondent no. 1 shall continue in operation and shall thereafter abide by the orders to be passed by the disciplinary authority.
The order of the Tribunal is modified accordingly.
With the aforesaid observations/directions the present writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.8.2015
Pkb/
