Union Of India And Ors vs Laxman
2023 Latest Caselaw 992 Kant

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
              KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                      PRESENT

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

                           AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

       WRIT PETITION NO.226626/2020(S-CAT)

BETWEEN:

1.   Union of India,
     Represented by Secretary,
     Department of Post,
     (Postal & Accounts Wing)
     Dak Bhavan,
     New Delhi-110 001

2.   Chief Postmaster General,
     Karnataka Circle,
     Bangalore,
     Bangalore-560 001

3.   Postmaster General,
     N.K. Region,
     Dharwad,
     Dharwad-580 001
                                         W.P. No.226626/2020
                             2




4.   Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
     Bidar Division,
     Bidar-585 401
                                    ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SUDHIR SINGH R. VIJAPUR, DSGI)

AND:

Laxman S/o. Narasappa,
Age: 55 years,
GDS BPM (POD),
Chatnalli B.O.,
Bidar District,
Residing at: Chatnalli Village,
Dist: Bidar-585 226
                                   ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHAMBULING S. SALIMATH, ADV.)


     This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the
records from the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Bangalore and quash the order - Annexure-A dated
11.02.2020     of    the      CAT,   Bangalore      in   OA
No.170/01010/2019, in the interest of justice and equity.

      This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in
'B' Group, through physical hearing/video conference,
this day SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, J., made the
following:

                          ORDER

This writ petition is directed against the order of the

Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application W.P. No.226626/2020

No.170/01010/2019. By the said order, Tribunal

directed the petitioners to complete whole process of

domestic inquiry within 3 months and also held that the

respondent would be eligible for full pay and allowances.

2. On the allegation that, respondent

misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,500/- covering 5 Money

Orders, he was put off the duty on 08.07.2015 and

thereafter an inquiry was ordered against him.

3. There was a delay of 3 years in serving

charge-sheet on the respondent. The inquiry did not see

end of the day even after 4 years. Therefore,

respondent approached the Central Administrative

Tribunal with an application seeking to quash Annexures

- A3 to A7 being a memos of different dates and

direction to the petitioners to consider put off duty period

from 15.09.2015 to 24.07.2015 as regular duty and also

to quash the memo dated 24.07.2018 issued by the W.P. No.226626/2020

Superintendent of Post Office, Bidar District. The

Tribunal referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court

in the case of AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. UNION

OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ANR. in Civil

Appeal No.1912/2015 (Arising out of SLP

No.31761/2013), passed the impugned order. Hence,

this writ petition.

4. We have heard Sri Sudhir Singh Vijapur,

learned DSGI for the petitioners and Sri Shambuling S.

Salimath, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The main ground urged by the petitioners'

counsel is that according to the Rule 12 of GDS (conduct

and engagement) Rules, the Ex-gratia payment payable

to a put off employee should not exceed 50% of the

admissible basic pay in case enquiry is extended beyond

90 days. Since, in this case, the Tribunal has directed W.P. No.226626/2020

payment of full pay to the respondent, it is against Rule

12.

6. Sri Shambuling S. Salimath, learned counsel

for the respondent submits that firstly there was delay of

3 years in issuing the charge-sheet and after issuing the

charge-sheet, inquiry was not completed even though 4

years had lapsed. The respondent's age is 57 years as

on today. Having regard to the delay, Tribunal has

directed payment of full pay and there is no infirmity in

it.

7. We have gone through the impugned order, in

which, there is reference to the judgment of the

Supreme Court. The facts in the judgment referred to by

the Tribunal disclose that a suspended employee

challenged the order of suspension before the Central

Administrative Tribunal, which held that no employee

could be kept under suspension for an indefinite period.

W.P. No.226626/2020

In this context, the Tribunal directed that if no charge-

sheet/charge memo was issued to the applicant within a

specified date, the employee should be reinstated into

service. Noticing the facts and circumstances, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since appellant therein

had been served with charge-sheet, he was still at liberty

to challenge his continued suspension in the manner

known to law.

8. In the case on hand a direction was given by

the Tribunal observing that because the inquiry could not

be completed within a reasonable time even after

issuance of charge-sheet, the respondent was entitle to

full pay.

9. It is not disputed by the petitioners that

inquiry has not been completed. Rule 12 contemplates

that charge-sheet has to be issued within 3 months and

if it is prolonged beyond 90 days, then Ex-gratia not W.P. No.226626/2020

exceeding 50% of the pay is to be paid. It does not

mean that petitioners can keep the matter pending for

indefinite period. This kind of situation certainly affects

the livelihood of the respondent. We do not find any

infirmity in the impugned order. This petition is devoid

of merits. Therefore, it is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SBS*