IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 22693 of 2005(S) --------------------------------------- OA.799/2002 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH. .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI - 682 018. 2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, KOTTAYAM DIVISION, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, (O/S) ADHOC DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, O/O.THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, KOTTAYAM DIVISION. 4. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP: BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.S.G. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. K.B.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, EX-GRAMIN DAK SEVAK MAIL DELIVERER, CHEMMANATHUKARA P.O., KARAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEMMANATHUKARA P.O., VAIKOM. 2. G.MOHANA PRASAD, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES (HQ), O/O.SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, MAVELIKARA DIVISION, MAVELIKARA INQUIRING AUTHORITY. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SEBASTIAN, ADV. SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON 04/04/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.22693/2005-S: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE O.A. NO. 799/2002 DT. 15/11/2002 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE P.2. HEREIN IN O.A. 799/2002 DTD. 13/06/2003. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 13/04/2005 IN O.A. NO. 799/2002. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.22693 of 2005 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008. JUDGMENT T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. This is a case where the disciplinary proceedings have been set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the person who awarded the impugned punishment, was not competent. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the applicant to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits also. 2. The first respondent applicant was working as EDDA. By order dated 7.12.1999, the Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram empowered the ASP(OS), Office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Kottayam, to function as the appointing authority of the applicant in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Thereafter, one M.N. Subramanian Namboodiri who was holding the post of Asst. Superintendent of Post Offices (OS), Kottayam issued a memo to him containing the charges. He submitted his defence statement. The disciplinary authority appointed one G. Mohana Prasad, Asst. Superintendent of Post Offices as enquiry authority to hold the enquiry. He submitted his report on 8.5.2001 holding that all the three articles of WPC 22693/2005 -2- charges have been proved. Thereafter, the applicant submitted his explanation to the disciplinary authority also. Ultimately, the punishment was imposed by Shri P.D. Sukumaran who was officiating as Asst. Superintendent of Post Offices (OS), Office of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kottayam. The applicant contended that he was only an Inspector of Post Offices who was officiating in the post of Asst. Superintendent of Post Offices, as the regular incumbent Shri M.N. Subramanian Namboodiri was relieved of the post on administrative exigencies. 3. The Tribunal accepted the contentions of the applicant and allowed the O.A. 4. Heard Shri P.Parameswaran Nair, learned Asst. Solicitor General for the petitioners and Shri P.C. Sebastian, learned counsel for the first respondent. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the Tribunal without giving liberty to the petitioners to complete the disciplinary proceedings by a competent authority, is not correct. It is also pointed out that the officer who imposed the punishment was competent to do so and the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct. A reading of the reply statement shows that the petitioners admitted that Shri P.D. Sukumaran was posted to officiate as ASP (OS), from 1.8.2001 to 2.9.2001 by Shri M..N. Subramanian Namboothiri who was deputed to WPC 22693/2005 -3- officiate as Superintendent of Post Offices, Manjeri Division. It was also contended that Shri P.D. Sukumaran was not appointed simply to perform the current duties of the office, but he was posted to officiate as Asst. Superintendent of Post Offices (OS) and therefore he was competent to exercise the power of the appointing authority. The Tribunal found that the Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram empowered the Asst. Superintendent of Post Offices, Kottayam Division to function as the appointing authority and Shri P.D. Sukumaran, who is lower in rank, was acting as ASP(OS) is not empowered to function as disciplinary authority. Therefore, the said officer cannot be said to be a competent officer to function as the appointing authority. The view taken by the Tribunal on the said issue cannot be termed as erroneous. It is in that view of the matter, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. 5. We find no reason to differ from the view taken by the Tribunal that the officer who passed the order of punishment,w as only empowered to act as ASP(OS) and thus he could not have acted as the appointing authority, going by the order passed by the Chief Postmaster General. But that will not end in any automatic reinstatement of the applicant and entitle him to claim all consequential benefits. The defect, if any, is only in respect of the person who imposed the punishment and not in respect of the WPC 22693/2005 -4- enquiry or its proceedings which have not been interfered by the Tribunal. But even then there is no legal bar in allowing the petitioners herein to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings by a duly empowered authority. As the punishment has been interfered only on a mere technicality and not on the merits, the Tribunal ought to have granted freedom to the petitioners to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry. 6. Therefore, we allow the writ petition and the operative portion of the order Ext.P3 directing the petitioners to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant and to reinstate him in service is hereby set aside. The petitioners are allowed to complete the disciplinary proceedings by a properly appointed competent authority. Since the matter is fairly an old one, the final orders in accordance with law shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The first respondent shall be deemed to be continuing on put off duty till final orders are passed in the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioners shall WPC 22693/2005 -5- disburse the allowance, if any, payable as per rules till the culmination of the proceedings. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (C.N. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ WPC 22693/2005 -6- C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 17th March, 2008.