IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA Writ Petition No.2759 of 2010 R.Dasappa ..Petitioner Vs. 1. Union of India rep. by the Member(P) Postal Services Board, Department of Post, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Post Master General, Department of Post, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai – 600 002. 3. The Post Master General, Western Region, coibmatore – 641 002. 4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Nilgiris Division, Udagamandalam, Nilgiris – 643 001. 5. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench represented by the Deputy Registrar, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 014. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the fifth respondent in O.A.No.808 of 2006 dated 24.10.2008 upholding the order of the first respondent in No.C-17013/37/2001-VP dated 19.01.2004 and that of the third respondent in Memo No.STB/20762/99 dated at Coimbatore – 641 002 dated 21.03.2000 and the order of the fourth respondent issued in Memo No.F1/3/96-97 dated at Udhagamandalam 643 001 dated 11.01.1999 and quash the said order and direct the respondents to restore the sale of pay and grant all consequential benefits including arrears of pay withheld. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : Mr.J.Lakshmi Narayanan For Respondents : Mr.S.Udayakumar,S.C.G.S.C for R1 to R4 R5- Tribunal. O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This writ petition is brought forth by one Mr.Dasappa seeking to quash the order of the Administrative Tribunal dismissing his application made in O.A.No.808 of 2006 whereby he challenged the order of the other respondents. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused along with the grounds of attack. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition can be stated as follows: The petitioner is working as Postal Assistant. When he was placed under suspension by order dated 9.1.1997, he filed an appeal but the same was kept pending for a long time which necessitated him to file O.A.No.858 of 1997. A direction was given by the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within a time frame. Though the appeal of the petitioner was disposed of, the original suspension order was continued to be in force. Challenging the same, he filed another O.A.No.186 of 1998 where he sought for reinstatement in service. Pending the original application, a charge memo was served upon him levelling five charges. Denying the charges, he filed a written statement. An order was passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.186 of 1998 directing the Disciplinary Authority to dispose of the departmental proceedings on or before 31.12.1998. The Enquiry Officer, after completing the enquiry, filed a report holding that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Following the same, the punishment of removal from service was served on him on 11.1.1998. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent. The Appellate Authority, on enquiry, was of the opinion that the punishment of removal was not in commensurate with the gravity of the offence and hence, modified the penalty of removal from service to that of reduction in pay by four stages for a period three years with cumulative effect by order dated 21.3.2000. Against the same, the petitioner filed a revision which was rejected. Under such circumstances, he preferred the Original Application before the Tribunal which was also dismissed. Hence, this writ petition has arisen. 4. What are all contended by the petitioner side before the Tribunal and equally here also is that the charges did not fall under any one of the provisions and it does not come within the ambit of definition of misconduct and the petitioner has not violated any one of the provisions of the Rules mentioned in SB https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Manual Volume-I. 5. The gist of the case of the petitioner is, in respect of five cheques, the petitioner had actually paid the amount to the bearer of the cheques one Nesamani. The evidence was also available to the effect. It is not the case of the department that the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.76,000/-. Further, in the absence of any violation of Rule and in the absence of any specific allegation of misappropriation of a sum of Rs.76,000/-, either the order of removal or the order of the modification of punishment by the Appellate Authority, was unwarranted. Under such circumstances, the original application was preferred before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not adverted to any one of the factual or legal position but has dismissed the original application. Under such circumstances, the above orders have got to be set aside by this Court. 6. The Court heard the learned counsel for the respondent department. 7. It is not in controversy that five charges were levelled against the petitioner herein. Insofar as the payments made in respect of the five cheques amounting to Rs.76,000/- is concerned, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner has made the payment either to the Postmaster, Udhagamandalam or to the payee Nesamani. The Enquiry officer has given a detailed report. Therefore, the contention putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no violation of any Rule, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that Rule 22 of the Appendix-I of Post Office SB Manual reads as follows: "When a cheque on scrutiny is found to be in order in all respects, it may be paid as under: a) Open cheque 1. Order cheques a) To the payee of the cheque b) If the cheque has been endorsed by the payee to another person to that person on his giving an endorsement in the blank that is signing the cheque without any specific endorsement. c) If the cheque bears an endorsement in blank of the last endorsee and is presented by a bearer, to the bearer on his signing below the signature of the last endorsee. d) If the cheque is drawn or endorsed restrictively e.g. "pay to x only", it will be paid only to the person to whom payment is restricted. In every such case, satisfactory identification of the person receiving payment, by a respectable person known to the Post Office Savings Bank will be required. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ i) Bearer cheque: to any person presenting it at the counter even if he is not the payee of the cheque. But this does not mean that the bearer cheque can be paid without any precaution. If there are reasons to suspect the bona fides of the person presenting it, enquiries may be made and identification obtained." From the very reading of the Rule, it would be quite clear that there must be satisfactory identification of person receiving the payment by a respectable person known to the Post Office Savings Bank. 8. In the instant case, though the petitioner has contended before the Tribunal and equally here also that the amount was paid to Nesamani, the said Nesamani was not even identified. Hence, there was clear violation of the Rule. Admittedly, the petitioner has not obtained any acquittance from the person, who according to him has received the cheque amount. Apart from that, it is admitted that the proceeds of the cheque drawn in favour of the Postmaster, Udhagamandalam was not paid to the payee of the cheque but paid to the bearer of the cheque without obtaining any acquittance from him. All would clearly show that there is violation of Rule. So long as the Rule is violated and a detailed report was given, further, on perusal, the punishment originally imposed i.e., removal from service and on appeal, the Appellate Authority considered the same and exercised leniency by reducing the punishment to that of reduction of pay by four stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect, the Court is of the opinion that though the act of the petitioner requires severe punishment, the appellate authority has taken a lenient view. 9. Taking into consideration, the nature of the charges, which remains proved, as could be seen from the available materials, the Court is of the opinion that the contentions putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, do not carry any merit whatsoever. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar /true copy / Sub Asst.Registrar vsi To 1. The Member(P), Union of India, Postal Services Board, Department of Post, Dak Bhavan, sansad Marg, New Delhi. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Chief Post Master General, Department of Post, Tamil Nadu Cricle, Chennai – 600 002. 3. The Post Master General, Western Region, coibmatore – 641 002. 4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Nilgiris Division, Udagamandalam, Nilgiris – 643 001. 5. The Deputy Registrar, The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 014. + 1 cc to Mr.J.Lakshmi Narayanan,Advocate,SR.10267 + 1 cc to Mr.S.Udayakumar,SCGSC,Advocate,SR.10000 W.P.No.2759 of 2010 PKB(CO) EM/23.2.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/