IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20343 of 2008(S) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.3.08 IN OA.674/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, KOLLAM DIVISION, KOLLAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES (SR), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI-110 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENT: ------------- R.KUNJU KRISHNA PILLAI, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, AGED 54 YEARS, EX-GRAMIN DAK SEVAK SUB POSTMASTER, KOTTUKAL.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA POSTAL DIVISION, RESIDING AT 'KRISHNA VILASAM', KOTTUKAL P.O, ANCHAL, KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.20343 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JULY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in O.A.No.674/06 are the writ petitioners. The applicant therein is the respondent. The respondent is a Gramin Dak Sevak Sub Postmaster. Inspections were conducted by the Assistant Superintendent of Posts on 27.9.2002 and 30.10.2002 in the Sub Post Office manned by the applicant. Shortage of cash was found. But, on both occasions, within 15 minutes, the cash found short was produced by the applicant. He was charged for temporary misappropriation. The Enquiry Officer who held the enquiry found that there is no misappropriation, because the Rule permits the ED Sub Postmaster to keep the money and valuables in his safe custody and the same need be brought to the Post Office as and when required. The relevant Rule reads as follows: “11(2). All EDBPMs whether their offices are provided with iron safes or not should make their own arrangements for the safe custody of cash and valuables on their own responsibility. They are at liberty to keep the cash and valuables wherever they like provided that they are available when required and that when called W.P.(C)No.20343/08 -2- for they can be produced for inspection within the time required for going to and coming back from the place where the cash is kept for safe custody.” In view of the said Rule, the Enquiry Officer held the applicant not guilty. But the Disciplinary Authority overruled that finding after affording an opportunity of being heard to the delinquent and imposed a punishment of removal from service which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority also. Challenging those orders, the CAT was moved by filing the above O.A. 2. The CAT after hearing both sides, held that the stand of the Enquriy Officer was correct and set aside the impugned proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. 3. The writ petitioners have come up before this Court challenging the said order of the CAT, a copy of which is produced as Exhibit P6. Going by the above quoted rule which deals with the keeping of cash and other valuables, we find nothing wrong with the order of the CAT. Admittedly, in both cases, within 15 minutes, the cash found to be short was produced by the respondent. The view taken by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority that the said Rule applies to keeping of cash during the night time only was correctly overruled by the CAT. There is no such limitation in the said Rule. We W.P.(C)No.20343/08 -3- agree with the reasons and conclusions of the Tribunal. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. It is really distressing to find that these types of untenable Writ Petitions are filed by the Union of India and its Officers. The only result of such Writ Petitions is the waste of time of Union of India and its money. This Court's time is also wasted. We hope and trust that the Union of India will not advise its counsel to file such Writ Petitions in future. Otherwise, we will be constrained to award costs also, even though the Writ Petition is dismissed in limine. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn