Ram Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 6546 Del

$~2.
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                        WRIT PETITIN (C) No. 6811/2015


                                          Date of decision: 19th October, 2016


        RAM KUMAR SHARMA                                      ..... Petitioner
                              Through Mr. Shesh Datt Sharma, Advocate.

                              versus


        UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                    ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Harsh Ahuja, Advocate for Ms.

to 4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):

The petitioner-Ram Kumar Sharma in this writ petition impugns the

order dated 1st April, 2015 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central

Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) whereby OA No. 3312/2014

has been rejected.

2. Ram Kumar Sharma had challenged the order dated 4 th April, 2014,

passed by the Revisionary Authority imposing an enhanced penalty of

withholding of next increment of pay for a period of three years without

cumulative effect. Earlier, vide order dated 14 th February, 2012, the

Disciplinary Authority had imposed a penalty of censure.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner has been

harassed and persecuted as one Virender Sonkar, S.D.I. (East) was in the

habit of victimising and vilifying his subordinate staff. He would force and

compel them to pay bribes and money. Reliance is placed on the suicide

note by Kiran Pal who was working as a postman.

4. We have considered the said contentions, but find that they are

extraneous and not relevant for the issue in question. The petitioner was

chargesheeted on 13th October, 2011 under Rule 16 of the Central Civil

Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 on the following allegations:-

"Whereas, on 4-07-2011 and 05-07-2011, Sri Ram Kumar Sharma, while discharging his duties as „Dak Sahayak‟ Mail & Sub-Account Assistant, Khatauli, had given dak relating to the election of doctors of all the beats to Sri Rajender Kumar Post-man. This resulted in wrong delivery and caused public complaints.

Hence, Sri Ram Kumar Sharma, Dak Sahayak has violated the provision of Rule 3(1)(ii)(iii) of Govt. Conduct Rules, 1964."

5. The petitioner had submitted his reply dated 20th October, 2011. By

letter dated 4th November, 2011, the petitioner was given ten days‟ time for

inspection of the documents. The documents were inspected on 10th

January, 2012. The statement of defence was furnished on 16 th January,

2012.

6. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzzafarnagar Division

passed an order dated 14th February, 2011, imposing a penalty of censure.

The sympathetic view was taken in view of the petitioner‟s past service and

conduct and on account of his promise to not commit any mistake in

future.

7. The Director of Postal Services, Bareilly Region, Bareilly, by memo

dated 3rd August, 2012, informed the petitioner that prima facie it was felt

that the punishment awarded did not commensurate with the gravity of the

charge established. The Revisionary Authority, under Rule 29 of the

CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, had proposed enhancement of the penalty to

withholding of next increment of pay for three years without cumulative

effect. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply within ten days of the

receipt of the memo.

8. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 18 th August, 2012. In the

reply, the petitioner has not made any allegation or assertion that the

charge sheet was issued malafidely or at the behest and at the instance of

Virender Sonkar, S.D.I. (East). Pertinently, the petitioner had accepted that

seven postmen were posted at Khatauli Post Office and the mails were

sorted and handed to each postman as per their beats. The postmen had left

the office and gone to their beats for delivery of mail. The petitioner

asserted that the delivery slip dated 5th July, 2011 was not made available to

him for inspection. This contention has been examined and discussed below.

9. By the order dated 4th April, 2014, the Director Postal Services,

Bareilly after considering the factual matrix, the charge proved, and the

reply by the petitioner held that the petitioner was guilty of the acts of

misconduct attributed to him and had failed to put forth any convincing

argument. The charges were serious and the punishment of censure did not

commensurate with the gravity of charges proved. He, substituted the

punishment and enhanced the penalty of censure to that of withholding of

next increment of pay for next three years without cumulative effect.

10. On the merits, three contentions are raised by the petitioner. It is

submitted that the petitioner had accepted the penalty of censure and,

therefore, there was no need and requirement for the Director, Postal

Services, Bareilly to enhance the punishment. The Doctrine of

Proportionality is pleaded. Secondly, it is submitted that there was

substantial delay in passing of the order dated 4 th April, 2014, whereas

show cause notice was issued on 3rd August, 2012. Thirdly, it is submitted

that the charge was not proved.

11. It is correct there is delay in passing of the revisionary order dated

4th April, 2014, whilst the show cause notice for enhancement of penalty

was issued on 3rd August, 2012 and the petitioner had submitted his reply

on 18th August, 2012. However, this would not be sufficient to strike down

the revisionary order, which is detailed and refers to various factual facets

and the charge proved. Prejudice on this account is not alleged or asserted.

On merits, it is noticed that complaints were received regarding non-

delivery of registered AD parcels/letters. The petitioner was confronted

with evidence and his statement recorded on 26th July, 2011, is placed on

record along with the counter affidavit. The petitioner had accepted that the

postmen used to exchange the registered AD letter/parcels. In the evening,

all postmen would return the delivery chart of the post given to them for

distribution. The petitioner was responsible and would check and match

the said delivery chart with the post given for delivery. Thereafter he

would relieve the postmen from duty. The delivery chart for 4 th July, 2011,

reflects and establishes that the registered post at serial Nos. 345 and 391,

had not been delivered. The petitioner was confronted for the said serial

numbers did not bear the signature of the receivers. The petitioner admitted

that he had failed to make inquiries from the concerned postmen. He did

not note the same himself. The petitioner had accepted his fault and

professed that the mistake might have happened during the distribution. A

second statement of the petitioner was recorded. The petitioner again

affirmed that the distribution sheets should have been verified and the

signatures matched. The delivery sheet was accepted, when all the articles

were distributed correctly. In response to question No. 10, the petitioner

confessed his mistake, stating that distribution of two registered parcels

was omitted by him and signatures for acknowledgment of deliveries were

missing.

12. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, vide the letter dated 4th

November, 2011, had informed the petitioner that the distribution detail

sheets dated 4th July, 2011 and 5th July, 2011 and the statements of the

petitioner were available on record and these could be verified. By the

letter dated 10th January, 2012, the petitioner affirmed having verified all

the documents in terms of the letter dated 4 th November, 2011. Thus, the

assertion of the petitioner that he was unaware and the charge was

ambiguous is wrong and fallacious. The delivery charts were shown and

confronted. Thereafter the petitioner had furnished his explanation.

13. The petitioner claims that he had not been shown the public

grievance complaint, i.e., the complaint received from third parties that the

registered letter had not been received by the addressees. This was

inconsequential and had not caused any prejudice. The fact is that the

registered posts were not delivered and this was the admitted position.

Non furnishing of the complaint had not made any difference.

14. On the question of proportionality, there is no ground or reason to

interfere with the charge relating to non-delivery of registered post and

failure of the petitioner to check the delivery chart and take corrective

steps. The punishment awarded is not disproportionate. It is not excessive,

as shocking one's conscience. It requires no argument to record the

importance of delivery of registered post letters and accept the significance

of the requirement to check delivery charts. This was the prime job.

15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the

present writ petition and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as

to costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

SUNITA GUPTA, J.

OCTOBER 19, 2016 VKR