IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date:- 28.01.2010 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice M. CHOCKALINGAM and The Honourable Mr. Justice T. RAJA W.P. No.1392 of 2010 and M.P. No.1 of 2010 1. Union of India, rep. by Principal Chief Post Master General, Anna Road, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai – 600 002. 2. Director of Postal services, Central Region-TN, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001. 3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Nagappattinam Division, Nagappattinam 611 001. ... Petitioners ..Vs.. 1. Mr. Allapichai 2. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order in O.A. No.613 of 2008 dated 22.10.2009 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. K. Mohana Murali (SPC) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This writ petition challenges the order dated 22.10.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby O.A. No.613 of 2008 filed by the first respondent was allowed. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. This writ petition is filed under the following facts and circumstances:- (i) While the first respondent was working as Postal Assistant at Nagapattinam head office, alleging that he failed to behave courteously in his official duty with colleagues as contemplated in Rule 3-A(a) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and also failed to maintain official decorum with the superior and thus it was a violation of provision of Rule 62 of Postal Manual Volume 3, a memorandum of charges was served upon him on 23.4.2007. He gave a letter that he admits the charges. (ii) An enquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted the enquiry, pursuant to which, a report was given by the Enquiry Officer and the same was served upon him calling for representation, but he did not give any representation. Then the first petitioner passed an order of compulsory retirement on 17.7.2007. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred before the second petitioner, who affirmed the order of the first petitioner, by an order dated 27.10.2007. (iii) Under the said circumstances, the first respondent took the matter before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking to set aside the order originally passed by the first petitioner and affirmed by the second petitioner. Opportunity was given to the department and both sides are heard. On enquiry, the Tribunal found that it was a fit case where the orders passed by the first petitioner and affirmed by the second petitioner were to be set aside. Hence this writ petition is arisen before this Court. 4. The only contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the instant case, when the charge memo was served upon the delinquent with specific allegations as per the Rules, he has given a letter of admission and hence an Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry was conducted procedurally and a copy of the report has been served upon him, but he did not give any representation. Thereupon, the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner passed the order, imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. On appeal, it was affirmed by the second petitioner. 5. Under such circumstances, he preferred the Original Application before the Tribunal, which has taken the erroneous view. Once the admission made by the delinquent in respect of the charges levelled against him, there is no need for taking another view. Apart from that, after receipt of copy of enquiry report, the delinquent did not make any representation also. Hence, the first petitioner passed the order of compulsory retirement and the same was affirmed by the second petitioner. Hence, the writ petition requires to be allowed in admission stage itself. 6. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the Court is of the considered opinion that this writ petition does not carry any merit whatsoever. In the instant case, admittedly, charges were framed against the delinquent/first respondent herein. It could be seen that he filed a letter, admitting the guilt. Now, it is pertinent to point out that if the letter given by the delinquent was acted upon as admission of guilt, there was no need for conducting any enquiry at all. 7. It is pertinent to point out that in the instant case, though enquiry Officer was appointed, enquiry was not at all conducted in proper manner and shortly it can be stated that there was no enquiry at all, since no witness was examined and no document was marked. The order only reveals that it is the simple reproduction of the contents of the charge sheet. 8. In such circumstances, the enquiry report has to be struck off. The Tribunal is perfectly correct in setting aside the order passed by the first petitioner and affirmed by the second petitioner. Since enquiry has not been properly conducted, there is no impediment for the department to proceed with the de novo enquiry. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. ssa. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Principal Chief Post Master General, The Union of India, Anna Road, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai – 600 002. 2. The Director of Postal services, Central Region-TN, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001. 3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Nagappattinam Division, Nagappattinam 611 001. 4. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai. 1 cc to Mr.K. Mohanamurali, Advocate, SR. 4799 W.P. No.1392 of 2010 and connected M.P. JP (CO) kk 8/2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/