Madras High Court
The Union Of India vs The Registrar on 30 March, 2023
W.P.No.24070 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Writ Petition No.24070 of 2022
and W.M.P.No.23050 of 2022
1. The Union of India
Rep. by the Director of Postal Services,
Southern Region,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Madurai – 625 002.
2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Officers,
Dindigul Division,
Dindigul – 624 001. .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench, High Court Campus,
Chennai – 600 104.
2. M.M.Philomine Raj Seletine,
Postal Assistant,
Nagalnagar SO,
Dindigul – 624 003. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for records in
respect of the impugned order dated 31.10.2019 in O.A.No.606 of 2014
passed by the first respondent and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 10
W.P.No.24070 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Ramesh
Senior Standing Counsel for P&T
R1 : Tribunal
For R2 : Mr.S.Arun
ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.)
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, passed in O.A.No.606 of 2014
dated 31.10.2019.
2. The facts leading to the present proceedings are the second
respondent before this Court filed original application in O.A.No.606 of
2014, to set aside the Memo No.F1/09/08-09 dated 11.12.2012 and
Memo No.VIG/15-17/13-14 dated 31.12.2013 passed by writ petitioners
herein and for the consequential orders. The Tribunal allowed the
application and set aside the proceedings on 31.10.2019. Challenging the
same, this Writ Petition has been filed on 05.09.2022.
3. There is no explanation in the affidavit as to why the order
has been challenged after nearly three years. In the mean while, the
second respondent has retired from service in the year 2022. However,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24070 of 2022
we are not inclined to dismiss the Writ Petition only on the ground of
delay and latches.
4. The applicant was working as Postal Assistant at Nagal
Nagar in Dindigul Division. He was visited with charge Memo on
15.06.2012 and he had submitted response to the same on 03.07.2012.
He had requested exoneration from all charges and in case, his
explanation was not accepted, for oral enquiry as per Rule 16(1-A) of
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Soon after his response dated 03.07.2012, the
writ petitioners had communicated him that they were dropping the
proceedings in and by way of a letter dated 24.08.2012. The letter dated
24.08.2012 is extracted for ready reference :-
“WHEREAS Sri.M.M.Philomin Raj Selastine,
Sub Postmaster, Sanarpatti SO 624304 has been
proceeded under Rule 16 of Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 vide
this Office Memo No.F1/09/08-09 dated 15.06.2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby
drops the above said proceedings without prejudice to
further action which may be considered in the
circumstances of the case”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24070 of 2022
5. After having dropped the proceedings, fresh proceedings
were initiated on the very same set of charges by the writ petitioners
against the second respondent. He filed representation on 24.09.2012 and
according to the applicant without considering the representation, it was
decided on 11.12.2012 (impugned proceedings) to withhold one
increment for the period of two years without cumulative effect from
01.07.2013. He preferred statutory appeal on 26.04.2013. The said appeal
was rejected on technical grounds that the proceedings are barred by
time. The appellate order was passed on 31.12.2013.
6. According to the applicant before the Tribunal, the
proceedings are contrary to the direction of the Director General of Post
and Telegram in his order in letter No.114/324/78-Disciplinary II dated
05th July, 1979. The specific case before the Tribunal is that the dropping
of charges, which has been extracted as above, does not disclose any
reasons as required by the proceedings dated 05.07.1979, which are
binding on the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners, as respondents
before the Tribunal, filed a detailed reply.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24070 of 2022
7. According to them, an enquiry was conducted by the
department to find out certain fraudulent activities in the recurring
deposit accounts. It was deducted on 24.11.2008. On the basis of the said
enquiry, a charge memo was issued under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965. They took note of the representation of the applicant dated
24.09.2012, against the charge memo and dropped the same. According
to them, no reason needs to be stated for dropping the charge memo
dated 15.06.2012. They were entitled to take further action considering
the facts and circumstance of the case and the letter dropping the charges
itself states that it is without prejudice to their rights to initiate action.
8. The Tribunal framed a question of law whether the
respondents are entitled to issue fresh charge memo on the same facts
when the earlier charge memo has been dropped without specifying the
reasons for the same. It had answered the question in favour of the
applicant and allowed the application.
9. According to Mr.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioners, the reasons need not to be stated as the proceedings
referred to above of the Director General of Postal Department are only
instructions and it does not have the force of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24070 of 2022
10. We are not in agreement with the learned counsel for the
petitioners because the circular has been issued by the highest authority
of the department viz., The Director General of Post and Telegram. The
said authority is vested with the powers to give instructions to his
subordinates. It has been in force for more than 50 long years. We
requested the learned Senior Counsel, if the said letter withdrawn or has
been modified subsequently. He fairly stated that the said letter continues
to be in force and neither has been withdrawn nor has been amended. We
extract the relevant portion of the letter for the immediate reference :-
“(3) Reasons for cancellation of original charge-
sheet to be mentioned if for issuing a fresh charge-sheet –
It is clarified that once the proceeding initiated under
Rule 14 or Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, are
dropped, the Disciplinary authorities would be debarred
from initiating fresh proceedings against the Delinquent
officers unless the reasons for cancellation of the original
charge-sheet or for dropping the proceedings are
appropriately mentioned and it is duly stated in the order
that the proceedings were being dropped without
prejudice to further action which may be considered in
the circumstances of the case. It is therefore, important
that when the intention is to issue a subsequent fresh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24070 of 2022
charge-sheet, the order cancelling the original one or
dropping the proceedings should be carefully worded so
as to mention the reasons for such an action and
indicating the intention of issuing a subsequent charge-
sheet appropriate to the nature of charge the same was
based on.”
11. The instruction is extremely clear. It says that if the
disciplinary proceedings, which have been initiated and are subsequently
dropped, the authority is debarred from initiating fresh proceeding unless
the reason for cancellation by the original authority as well as/or for
dropping of the proceedings mentioned in the very same order dropping
the proceedings. The letter which has been extracted above (paragraph
No.4) shows that no reasons have been given for dropping the charges.
12. It is pertinent to point out that the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners submits that subsequently they had given the reasons
after issuance of the fresh proceedings. It is neither satisfies the letter nor
spirit of the instruction of the Director General of Post & Telegram dated
05.07.1979. Apart from this, the Tribunal had referred to the judgment of
the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the Karnataka High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24070 of 2022
and has come to the correct conclusion that proceedings once the charges
had dropped without giving any reason, a proceeding cannot be re-
initiated and has further held that the proceedings dated 05.07.1979 are
binding on the writ petitioners.
13. We know that our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is visitorial or supervisory in nature. We are not
concerned with the decision but the decision making process. However,
for the sake of our satisfaction, we went through the order, Rules and the
circulars. We do not find any perversity or illegality in the same.
Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal.
14. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
(V.M.V., J) (V.L.N., J)
30.03.2023
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24070 of 2022
To
1. The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench, High Court Campus,
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24070 of 2022
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
rts
Writ Petition No.24070 of 2022
and W.M.P.No.23050 of 2022
30.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
