All India Postal Employees Union Group ... vs Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 2701 Jhar

Agitation Movement? if yes, details thereof.

(d) Whether the amount of Rs. (d) No amount of Rs.250000/- 2,50,000/- has been paid through has been paid through cheque cheque from the account of All India from the account of All India Postal Employees Union Group 'C' to Postal Employees Union Group the account of Farmers' Solidarity Fund 'C' to the account of Farmers' for the Farmer's Agitation Movement Solidarity Fund. out of which Rs.1,50,000/- paid by ITEF and 1,00,000/- contributed by NFPE as mentioned in CWC work report? if yes, details thereof.

26. It is the case of the writ petitioner that Rs. 50,000/- was given by Federation - NFPE to the World Federation of Trade Unions as affiliation fee and Rs. 1,00,000/- had been given to the Confederation of Central Government Employees and Workers, also by Federation - NFPE. These transactions had nothing to do with the petitioner herein as NFPE is a separate and distinct entity.

27. The respondent department sought justification from NFPE with respect to the transactions which was responded vide letter dated 22.12.2022 by NFPE which is shown in the comparative chart as follows: -

The points on which clarification was Reply dated 22.12.2022 by sought for vide letter dated 13.12.2022 of NFPE (annexure-8 series) Department of Posts (annexure-7)

(a) Justification and existing Rules in respect The contribution/donation of the following donations mentioned in the given to the organizations as letter under reference: - mentioned in your letter under Sl. Financial Amount Donation reference 2(a) from serial No. No. year of given to 1 to 4 were discussed and statement decided in Federal Executive

1. 2020-2021 50,000.00 WFTU of NFPE and the statement of

2. -do- 5,000.00 NCR Women audited accounts was Committee presented in Federal Council

3. 2021-2022 50,000.00 CCGE of NFPE held at Mysure from

4. -do- 5,000.00 ABJM Samiti 06 to 08 November-2022 and NCR the same was approved by the house unanimously.

This is the tradition that every organization has to extend its solidarity support to other fraternal organizations when they hold any organizational programme.

  (b) Relevance of books purchased from            2(b) there is no question of
  CPI(M) office for official use of the            relevance of books purchased
  Federation /Service Associations along with      from CPI(M) office. This was
  details of books.                                privately purchased by one of
                                                   our office staff and the same
                                                   amount was not transferred by
                                                   union. We have already
                                                   clarified regarding this in our
                                                   letter    no     even     dated
                                                   14.10.2022.

  (c) Please provide a copy of authority letter    2(c) For this issue please
  under which the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was       provide some time. We will
  required to pay for affiliation of recognised    collect from WFTU office and
  Service Federation/Association.                  will submit soon.

  (d) Justification/existing Rules in respect of   2(d)      This     amount      of
  the transaction of Rs. 1,00,000/- given to       Rs.100000/- (One lakh) only
  leadership of farmers which is clearly           was collected by NFPE from
  mentioned in your monthly journal for the        its affiliates and transferred to
  month of December, 2021. Please provide the      Confederation of Central
  bank details in respect of above transaction.    Government Employees &
                                                   Workers who has given to
                                                   Farmers and Agricultural
                                                   Workers Organizations as
                                                   solidarity support. NFPE has
                                                   not given directly to Farmers
                                                   Organization. The same was
                                                   also decided in Federal
                                                   Executive of NFPE and passed
                                                   in General Body in Federal
                                                   Council.

28. Ultimately a show-cause notice dated 16.03.2023 was issued by the respondent- department to the petitioner as well as to NFPE under Rule 8 of the Rules of 1993 wherein a reference was made to the aforesaid

exchange of communications. The show cause notice was objecting to following three transactions being in contravention of Rule 5(b), 5(h) and 6(c) and asking the petitioner as well as NFPE to show-cause as to why recognition accorded to the petitioner and also to NFPE be not withdrawn:-

(a) It was observed that the federation and association donated some amount to confederation of Central Government Employees and Workers to provide help to farmers' movement,

(b) An amount of Rs. 4395/- was paid to CPI(M) [Communist Party of India (Marxist)], and

(c) An amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to CITU (Centre of Indian Trade Unions).

29. It is not in dispute that the General Secretary of the petitioner as well as Secretary General of NFPE was one and the same person and consequently, a letter dated 21.03.2023 was filed by the General Secretary of the petitioner/Secretary General of the NFPE seeking time to respond to the show-cause notice dated 16.03.2023 and time was duly granted. Ultimately, a show-cause reply dated 29.03.2023 was filed and the opening sentence of the show-cause reply reveals that a common reply was filed on behalf of the petitioner and NFPE.

30. The perusal of the show-cause reply reveals that the person who was General secretary of the petitioner was also the Secretary General of the NFPE. He stated that he was elected as General Secretary of the petitioner during the 3rd week of April 2022 and as Secretary General of NFPE during 1st week of November, 2022 and was not totally acquainted with the daily functioning of offices and it was asserted that he found no reflection of the alleged transactions in the accounts (except funding the confederation which was explained in the show-cause reply) and earlier replies from the organization were submitted accordingly. It was also asserted that as there was no reflection in the audit accounts, it was evident that in no way it was an organizational decision or a collective act

of the organization. After having given this background, the transactions were sought to be explained in the following manner:

(a) With respect to the allegation of donating some amount to Confederation of Central Government Employees & Workers to provide help to farmers' movement, it was asserted that NFPE is an affiliate of Confederation of Central Government Employees & Workers and contributes the fund as quota of the confederation each year and the remittance was usual contribution and accordingly noted in the account of NFPE. It was explained that later on the confederation had intimated that the fund was utilized for the aid of farmers and it was the stand taken in the show-cause reply that the utilization of collected fund was a decision of the confederation and was not under the control of NFPE. However, as the aid was provided to farmers' movement by the confederation, NFPE decided to remain transparent by letting their members know how the fund was utilized and consequently, in one of the subsequent meetings the matter was informed to the Federal Executive Members.

Subsequently, in November, 2022 it was reported before the house of Federal Council and the delegates approved it. It was also asserted in the show-cause reply that in the minutes submitted to the Directorate, there were two amendments to the constitution also, which was approved by the department without any objection. Thus, the allegation that NFPE made donation to farmers' movement was said to be a distorted fact.

Further, the transaction was sought to be justified by asserting that NFPE has a glory of contributing on many occasions for the cause of humanity and reference was made to clause 4(e) of the Constitution of NFPE. It was asserted that they have an obligation to work for the interest of the nation. It was also stated in the show-cause reply that the Government of India took a soft stand on the demand of the farmers' movement and this stand of Government of India revealed that it was in the interest of the nation. It was asserted that the noticees were not able to understand as to how the aid to farmers was objectionable to the extent of withdrawing the recognition of the largest Federation in the department. Reliance was also placed on Rule 5(h) of the Rules of 1993.

(b) So far as allegation with regard to donation of Rs. 50,000/- to CITU is concerned, the same was completely denied.

(c) So far as allegation with regard to payment of a sum of Rs. 4935/- is concerned, it was mentioned that the show-cause wrongly mentioned the figure as Rs. 4395/- and it was admitted that the amount was donated to CPI(M) but such transaction was without their knowledge and the payment was made online on 05.01.2021 being the cost of some books which were purchased. It was asserted that the said transaction of Rs. 4935/- was not a decision of an organization, but it was a personal purchase made by office assistant and the bank account of the Union was utilized temporarily for making a digital payment and the said amount was later on deducted from the salary of the office assistant. Thus, the payment of Rs. 4935/- made to CPI(M) was completely disowned by stating that the same was a personal act of an employee and the amount was already recovered from the salary of the said office assistant.

31. The said show-cause reply was rejected by the respondent- department by the impugned order dated 26.04.2023 (Annexure-13). It was recorded in the impugned order that from the income and expenditure account of the petitioner for the year ending 31st March 2021, it was clear that an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was contributed to confederation for farmers' movement and NFPE vide letter dated 24.08.2022 (para c) had already admitted funding to the farmers' movement through federation by stating that NFPE and its constituents donated some amount to Confederation of Central Government Employees & Workers to provide help to farmers' movement which as per them was totally non-political movement and that it was a tradition amongst various trade unions to extend solidarity to each other when any trade union or working-class union is conducting any agitation or movement. The impugned order observed that the audited statement proved that the noticees were fully aware of the utilization of the money given by them to the confederation and it was clearly an organizational decision of the petitioner. With respect to payment of an amount of Rs. 4935/- which was said to be a personal transaction and erroneously paid from the account of the Association, the stand of the Association was rejected as an afterthought and it was recorded that the Association had not provided any evidence in

this regard as to how a personal transaction can be made from the account of Association and it was asserted that in case of any transaction being made from the account of the Association, it will be considered as a collective decision with respect to application of fund. Further, by referring to the copy of bank transaction it was recorded that there was a transaction of Rs. 50,000/- from the account of the Association to the account of CITU, but no further detail with regard to date of the transaction was mentioned.

The request of the petitioner and NFPE to treat the earlier replies as withdrawn, was rejected.

32. It was observed in the impugned order that Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 1993 stipulated that the Service Association was formed primarily with the objective of promoting the common service interest of its members and as per Rule 5(h), the funds consist exclusively of subscriptions from members and grants, if any, made by the Government, and are to be applied only for the furtherance of the objects of the Service Association. The impugned order further noted that Rule 6 of the Rules of 1993 provided that the Service Associations shall not maintain any political fund or lend itself to the propagation of the views of any political party or member of such party. The impugned order concluded that the aforesaid transactions were in contravention of Rule 5(b), Rule 5(h) and Rule 6(c) of the Rules of 1993 and ultimately, the common show-cause reply filed by the petitioner and the NFPE was rejected and the recognition of the petitioner as well as NFPE was withdrawn with immediate effect and 'till further orders.

Findings of this Court in connection with the transaction of an amount of Rs. 4935/- made through online payment to CPI(M)

33. This Court finds that so far as the transaction of an amount of Rs. 4935/- made through online payment to CPI(M) is concerned, the same was sought to be disowned by stating that it was a personal transaction of one employee but no explanation was furnished as to how the employee

could have access and authority to make online transaction from the bank account of the petitioner.

34. Further, as per the case of the petitioner a receipt has been produced amounting to Rs. 4935/- paid to CPI(M) Publications stated to be against 'pending dues of 05.01.2021'. The receipt does not reflect that it was issued against any payment towards buying books. Moreover, the receipt itself was issued much belatedly i.e. on 20.10.2022 still reflecting 'pending dues of 05.01.2021' although the on-line payment was admittedly made on 05.01.2021 itself. It is important to note that earliest objection in this connection was made by the respondent - department as back as on 10th October 2022 and the aforesaid receipt is dated 20.10.2022. Apparently, the explanation of the petitioner is an afterthought and has rightly been held to be so in the impugned order. This Court finds that on the face of the materials placed before this Court the rejection of explanation with respect to transaction of Rs.4935/- paid to CPI(M) is based on sound reasons. The position stands established that an amount of Rs. 4935/- was given to CPI(M) by way of donation from the account of the petitioner through online mode on 05.01.2021. This Court is of the considered view that Payment of aforesaid amount of Rs. 4935/- to CPI(M) was certainly a remittance to a political party and consequently, such remittance was violative of Rule 6(c) of the Rules of 1993 and rightly held to be so in the impugned order.

Findings of this Court in connection with contribution made to Confederation for farmers' movement

35. So far as contribution made to Confederation for farmers' movement is concerned, specific reference has been made with respect to the income and expenditure account of the petitioner which showed remittance of an amount of Rs. 30,000/- for farmer's movement. This Court finds that though the show-cause reply was jointly filed, but no specific reply was made by the petitioner with respect to funding farmers' movement and in the impugned order, the amount of Rs. 30,000/- was

referrable to the income and expenditure account of the petitioner. The fact that an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was mentioned in the income and expenditure account of the petitioner being an amount of contribution to Confederation for farmers' movement, is not dispute. Further, the documents filed by the petitioner with respect to the income and expenditure account also reveal the said entry. Though the specific amount in the show-cause notice was not mentioned with respect to the monetary help extended to farmers' movement, but the impugned order reflects that the monetary help was duly extended and exact amount referrable to the income and expenditure account of the petitioner has been mentioned. The income and expenditure account of the petitioner as annexed with the writ petition for the year ended 31 st March 2021 shows specific entry as under:

Contribution to Confederation for 30,000.00 farmer's movement

36. The writ petitioner has tried to explain the remittance of Rs. 30,000/- for farmers' movement by stating that the fund was remitted as quota of the confederation but when the confederation apprised the petitioner with respect to its utilization towards farmers' movement, the petitioner association accounted for the same in its account. This Court is of the considered view that even if the said explanation is taken into consideration, the fact stands admitted that the remittance of Rs. 30,000/- was made for farmers' movement and certainly the same cannot be said to be in consonance with aforesaid Rule 5(b) and Rule 5(h) of the Rules of 1993. Moreover, in the reply to the show-cause notice, such stand was taken which was rejected by the impugned order.

37. This Court is of the considered view that remittance of Rs.30,000/- from the account of the petitioner as contribution to farmers' movement is an admitted fact on record. This Court is also of the considered view that utilization of the aforesaid amount from the account of the petitioner for farmers' movement cannot be said to be serving the object of promoting

the common service interest of the members of Association and accordingly such utilization was violative of Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 1993; such utilization of fund of the petitioner for farmers' movement cannot be said to be for furtherance of the objects of the Service Associations and accordingly, such utilization was violative of Rule 5(h) of the Rules of 1993 also.

This Court is of the considered view that remittance of Rs.30,000/- from the account of the petitioner as contribution to farmers' movement is violative of Rule 5(b) and Rule 5(h) of the Rules of 1993 and rightly held to be so in the impugned order.

Findings of this Court in connection with Remittance of Rs. 50,000/- to CITU

38. So far as the allegation with regard to payment of Rs. 50,000/- to CITU is concerned, this Court finds that a specific notice dated 10.10.2022 (Annexure-5) in this regard was issued to NFPE whereby the query no. (b) was:-

"(b) Whether the amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been remitted from the account of All India Postal Employees Union Group 'C' to the account of CITU on 02.11.2020? if yes, details thereof."

In response to this query, NFPE responded vide letter dated 14.10.2022 as under:

"(b) No amount was transferred to CITU. This amount of Rs.50000/-

was given to World Federation of Trade Unions as affiliation fee as NFPE and Confederation of CGE&W are affiliates of WFTU."

Another letter has been placed on record which is a letter dated 13.12.2022 issued to NFPE wherein a justification was sought for with regard to payment of Rs. 50,000/- as donation to WFTU apart from three other transactions and in response to that, NFPE had sought for some time so as to collect some information from WFTU office. Further responses of NFPE with regard to payment to WFTU have not been placed on record.

39. This Court finds that a common show-cause notice dated 16.03.2023 was issued to NFPE as well as to the petitioner wherein payment of Rs. 50,000/- to CITU was mentioned. However, in the present case NFPE is not the petitioner although the impugned order cancels the recognition granted to NFPE and also to the petitioner.

40. This Court is of the considered view that so far as the transaction of Rs. 50,000/- by way of donation to CITU is concerned, no details in that regard could be found in the records of the petitioner and so far as records of the co-noticee i.e. NFPE is concerned, there is no need to make any comment particularly in view of the fact that NFPE is not the petitioner before this Court and it has been submitted by the petitioner that NFPE has filed a separate writ petition against the impugned order before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Therefore, the allegation with regard to payment of Rs. 50,000/- to CITU so far as it relates to the petitioner has no consequence and hence, the entire argument of the petitioner that they were required to be given an opportunity of hearing with regard to alleged transaction of Rs. 50,000/- with CITU also has no relevance.

41. Suffice is to say that two transactions i.e., transaction relating to payment of an amount of Rs. 4935/- to CPI(M) and transaction of an amount of Rs. 30,000/- i.e., a contribution to confederation for farmers' movement, stand admitted on record and as held above, such remittance is clearly in violation of the Rules 5(b), 5(h) and 6(c) of the Rules of 1993.

42. In such circumstances, there is no doubt that the petitioner had violated the provisions of Rule 5(b), Rule 5(h) and Rule 6(c) of the Rules of 1993 and therefore, it called for an action in terms of Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules of 1993 which led to withdrawal of recognition of the petitioner with immediate effect and till further orders.

43. In exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit in appeal over the decision impugned. This Court finds that rules of natural justice have been followed and there is no doubt that out of the three transactions, two were found proved against the petitioner and they have tried to justify/explain the two transactions which

has been rejected by the impugned order by citing reasons. So far as the third transaction with regards to remittance of Rs.50,000/- to CITU is concerned, the same could not be substantiated as against the petitioner and could be subject matter of consideration so far as NFPE is concerned who was issued a common show cause with that of the petitioner and whose recognition has also been cancelled but NFPE is not the petitioner before this Court. The petitioner has placed numerous communications undertaken by NFPE where different transactions were under cloud but those communications cannot be taken into consideration except those which were made jointly by the petitioner and NFPE though both were represented by the same person namely, Mr. J. Majumdar.

44. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, there is no doubt that out of the three transactions/allegations made in the show cause notice, two were duly proved against the petitioner which is sufficient to sustain the impugned order.

45. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Union of India v. ISRO Drivers Association" reported in (2020) 8 SCC 657 that the primary object of forming Service Association is to promote the common service interest of its members and the membership of the service association remain restricted to such government servants having common interest and all group of employees are categorized as a "distinct category" for forming their association.

46. This Court is of the considered view that interest of the members of the Service Association of the petitioner cannot be jeopardized for all times to come and for an indefinite period merely because some of the transactions were not found to be in consonance with the Rules of 1993. Rule 6(k) of the Rules of 1993 provides that the Service Association shall not do any act or assist in the doing of any act which, if done by a government servant, would contravene any provision of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. This Court is of the considered view that in case any member of the Association has acted against any provision of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 while dealing with the

funds of the Association, such person can certainly be proceeded in terms of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 but the interest of the members of the Service Association cannot be jeopardized for all times to come. This Court also finds that the impugned order of de-recognition is "till further order" and certainly the derecognition is not for all times to come.

47. This Court is of the view that when the recognition was granted for a period of five years, the order of de-recognition cannot extend beyond the expiry of the period of recognition which has already expired. In such circumstances, it would certainly be open to the petitioner to apply for fresh recognition if the petitioner is otherwise found eligible under the Rules of 1993. Grant or denial of fresh recognition would be within the exclusive domain of the respondents who are expected to act in accordance with law.

48. During the course of argument, it transpired that the recognition to the petitioner was granted only for a period of 5 years with effect from 19.07.2019 which expired on 18.07.2024. The office memorandum dated 30th July 2024 has been produced by the learned Addl. SGI whereby the validity of recognition of Service Association which was till 18th July 2024 has been extended for a period of one year with effect from 19 th July 2024 or till completion of verification process, whichever is earlier.

49. Vide order dated 12th April 2024 the impugned order was stayed. The stay order was continued by virtue of the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 1614-1617 of 2024 which was directed to operate till the matter is finally decided. After the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this case was placed before this Bench for the first time on 04 th December 2024 and the arguments were concluded on 16th December 2024. Consequently, the interim order dated 12th April 2024 has continued throughout. In such circumstances, the petitioner might have been benefitted by the aforesaid office memorandum of extending the validity of recognition of Service Association of the petitioner.

50. This Court also finds that there is a clear direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that whatever final view the High Court takes, the implementation thereof shall remain in abeyance for a period of three months from the date of pronouncement of judgment to enable the aggrieved party to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the implementation of this judgment shall remain in abeyance for a period of 3 (three) months from today.

51. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

52. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj/Mukul/AFR