IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4084 of 2009(S) ------------------------- OA.678/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, THIRUVALLA DIVISION,ADHOC DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, THIRUVALLA. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, CENTRAL REGION, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-16. 3. THE MEMBER (PERSONAL),DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. 4. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL,KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT: ---------------------------------------------- P.K.BABU, S/O.NEELAKANDAN,EX-POSTAL ASSISTANT, CHANGANACHERRY.HO, NOW RESIDING AT AMBILI BHAVAN, POST THRIKODITHANAM-686 105. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.SOMARAJAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.4084/2009 S APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.678/06 DTD. 31/07/2008. P2: COPY OF THE O.A.NO.678/06 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. P3: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN O.A.NO.678/06. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DTD. 18/01/2010 IN CONTEMPT PETITIOIN (CIVIL) NO.67 OF 2009 IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.678 OF 2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C.)No.4084 of 2009-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The respondent, a sub post master was proceeded against on counts of indiscipline. He was found guilty of having temporarily misappropriated a particular amount and also having shown a fictitious liability of Rs.4,000/-. The disciplinary authority proceeded in accordance with the rules, concluded the enquiry and imposed punishment of removal from service. The appellate authority and the revisional authority confirmed it. 2.On the application of the respondent, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench upheld WPC4084/09 -: 2 :- the proceedings of the disciplinary authority and held that those proceedings are in terms of the relevant statutory rules, but held that the appellate authority and the revisional authority acted erroneously in not having extended to delinquent an opportunity of pre-decisional hearing. In that premise, the Tribunal set aside the action against the respondent herein and directed the revisional authority to reconsider the matter after providing the delinquent an opportunity of personal hearing. 3.In this writ petition filed by the Department, it cannot be held that the direction of the Tribunal to rehear the revision by the revisional authority is without jurisdiction or contrary to law because it remains admitted that the delinquent was not given an opportunity of pre- decisional hearing. Even if a rule of hearing is not specifically provided for by the statutory rules, unless such hearing is specifically excluded by those rules, rules of natural justice WPC4084/09 -: 3 :- have to be imported to provide such a hearing, particularly when the punishment imposed is of removal from service. But, one glaring illegality which has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order of the Tribunal has been made with dice loaded against the Department in as much as the Tribunal has attempted to say that the gravity of the charges against the delinquent is not sufficient enough to visit him with the penalty of removal from service. We would only notice that the allegations were relating to official misdeeds. The office held by the delinquent was that of a sub post master. He deals with funds of people who make deposits with the post offices. It is an office of confidence. At any rate, the Tribunal ought to have dissuaded itself from commenting upon the punishment that could be meted out, it having decided to direct reconsideration of the revision. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is WPC4084/09 -: 4 :- allowed in part setting aside the impugned order to the extent it makes observations against the punishment imposed. This is being done to provide the revisional authority sufficient opportunity to reconsider the entire case on its merits and decide de novo, including on the quantum of penalty, if any, to be imposed. This shall, however, be done after providing the delinquent, the respondent herein, an opportunity of personal hearing. Let this be done untrammelled by any observations in the impugned order or in this judgment. The time to do so is fixed as three months from now. The impugned order of the Tribunal will stand modified accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge. Sha/1905