Karnataka High Court

Sri. M Venkatesh vs Union Of India on 28 February, 2022

Bench: P S Kumar, Rajendra Badamikar

                                          W.P No.18395/2021

                             1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

       WRIT PETITION No.18395 OF 2021 (S-CAT)

BETWEEN :

SRI. M. VENKATESH
S/O THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKED AS A SORTING ASSITANT
IN RMS OFFICE, BANGALORE
RESIDING AT KAKKARAGOLLA VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK
KARNATAKA                                  ... PETITIONER

(BY SHRI. ANISH JOSE ANTONY, ADVOCATE)

[THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]

AND :

1.     UNION OF INDIA
       REPRESENTED BY MINISTRY OF
       COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION'S
       CENTER, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS
       OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS
       (POSTAL), KARNATAKA CIRCLE
       3RD FLOOR , GPO BUILDING
       BANGALORE-560 001

2.     CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL
       KARNATAKA CIRCLE
       BANGALORE-560 001
                                                  W.P No.18395/2021

                                   2

3.   ADHOC DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
     AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR
     OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF
     ACCOUNTS (POSTAL)
     BANGALORE-560 001

4.   SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
     RMS, BANGALORE SORTING DIVISION
     BANGALORE-560 009                           ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. S. SHUBHA, CGC)
                                  ....
     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1.A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS      OR    ANY   OTHER    APPROPRIATE   WRIT,   ORDER   OR
DIRECTION TO BE ISSUED TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ANNEXURE
- A ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DISMISSING THE
APPLICANT FROM THE SERVICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE
ANNEXURE - B ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UPHOLDING
THE ANNEXURE - A ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND
REINSTATE          THE    SERVICE        OF      THE     APPLICANT.
2. A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER
OR DIRECTION BE ISSUED TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE ANNEXURE - K
ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ON
26.08.2021 AND ETC.


     THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 09.02.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR             J, PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:-
                                                     W.P No.18395/2021

                                       3


                                    ORDER

Petitioner has challenged order dated August 26, 2021

passed by the CAT1, Bengaluru dismissing his O.A2.

No.170/00429/2021.

2. Brief facts of the case are, petitioner was

working as 'Sorting Assistant' in RMS3 Office in Bengaluru.

He was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment

in four cases. Taking note of the conviction and sentence,

the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated June 14, 2011

dismissed him from service. The said order was upheld by

the Appellate Authority vide order dated August 09, 2012.

Petitioner has filed the instant O.A. in the year 2021 along

with Miscellaneous Application No.315/2021 for condonation

of delay of 2394 days in filing the O.A. The CAT has

dismissed the Miscellaneous Application and consequently

dismissed the O.A. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed

this writ petition.

Central Administrative Tribunal

Original Application

Railway Mail Service W.P No.18395/2021

3. We have heard Shri. Anish Jose Antony, learned

Advocate for petitioner and Smt. S. Shubha, learned CGC

for respondents.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted

that:

• where an employee working under the Central

Government is convicted and sentenced to undergo

imprisonment, the Disciplinary Authority is duty bound

to peruse the judgment of the Criminal Court and

consider all the facts and circumstances of the case.

In support of this contention, he placed reliance on

Union of India and another Vs. Tulsiram Patel and

others4;

• based on the judgment in Tulsiram Patel, the

Department of Personnel and Training, has issued an

official memorandum dated November 11, 1985 which

contains guidelines to be followed in cases where a

AIR SC 1985 1416 = (1985) 3 SCC 398 (para 62) W.P No.18395/2021

Government Servant has been convicted on a criminal

charge; and

• the order of dismissal does not disclose that guidelines

have been followed by the Disciplinary Authority.

5. In substance, Shri. Anish Jose submitted that the

Disciplinary Authority has not followed the law laid down in

Tulsiram Patel and the guidelines contained in the Official

Memorandum issued by the DoP&T. Further, the Appellate

Authority has also erroneously confirmed the order passed

by the Disciplinary Authority and the CAT has dismissed the

O.A. both on limitation and merits, without recording any

reasons for dismissal on merits.

6. Smt. Shubha, learned CGC argued opposing the

writ petition.

7. We have carefully considered rival contentions

and perused the records.

W.P No.18395/2021

8. Admittedly, the Disciplinary Authority has passed

the order of dismissal on June 14, 2011. Petitioner has

presented his appeal before the Appellate Authority on July

23, 2011 and the same has been rejected on August 09,

2012. Petitioner was released from the prison, in 2014. He

presented W.P. No.30347/2019 challenging the order of

dismissal before this Court. It stood dismissed on March 19,

2021 for non-compliance of office objections and also on

the ground of alternative remedy. Thereafter, petitioner

has filed the instant O.A. in the year 2021. The learned

CAT has recorded in paras 6 to 10 that not even a 'single'

reason has been given by the applicant explaining the huge

delay in filing the O.A. The impugned order shows that it

was urged before the CAT that since the applicant had

remained in prison, he could not file the O.A. within the

period of limitation. The CAT has not accepted this reason

by holding thus:

"9. A persual of the record reveals, that the applicant was admitted to Central Prison, Bellary on 02.11.2009 and was released on 14.01.2014 on expiry of his sentence. There was no reason with him to not to file the W.P No.18395/2021

original application before this Tribunal or the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court immediately after his release from the prison on 14.1.2014 and he still waited for a long period of more than five years to file the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court where he even failed to remove the office objections. He has not given a single reason in the miscellaneous application preventing him from filing the Writ Petition during the period of those five years.

10. We do not find any justification to condone such a huge delay of 2394 days in filing the Original Application and, therefore, the Miscellaneous Application No.315/2021 deserves to be dismissed."

(Emphasis Supplied)

9. Shri. Anish Jose sought to strenuously contend

that petitioner came to know of his dismissal order only in

2019 by pointing out the date of issuance of the attested

copy of the order as 05.07.2019 (Annexure-A to the O.A).

This contention is liable to be rejected in limine because, it

is factually incorrect, because the Appellate Authority has

clearly recorded in the first paragraph of its order that the

appeal was filed on 23.07.2011. Thus, it is clear that

petitioner had the knowledge of dismissal in 2011 when he

approached the Appellate Authority in July, 2011. He was W.P No.18395/2021

released from prison in 2014. He has approached this

Court in W.P. No.30347/2019 after a lapse of five years

from the date of release. Thereafter, he has approached the

CAT.

10. In view of the undisputed facts recorded

hereinabove, we find no error in the order passed by the