CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.8071 OF 2005 (In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) ****** 1. Union of India through Director General, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Member (Personnel), Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. The Chief Postmaster General, Department of Post, Bihar Circle, Patna. 4. Postmaster General, North Region, Muzaffarpur. 5. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarpur Division, Muzaffarpur. 6. Shri S.P.Singh, Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna ( the then P.M.G.) (North),Muzaffapur Division, Muzaffapur. 7. Director of Postal Services, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur. -------Petitioners Versus 1. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench Patna, through its Registrar. 2. Manoj Kumar son of Late Ram Ahlad Singh, Posted as Postal Assistant, Bakhara, S.O. Under Sr. Superintendent of post offices, Muzaffarpur Division. ------Respondents ****** For the Petitioners : Mr. Sarva Deo Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent no.2 : Mr.M.P.Dixit, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ****** K.K.Mandal,J., This writ petition is directed against the order dated 08th March, 2005 (Annexure-7), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (‘CAT’ for short) in O.A. No. 749 of 2003 (Manoj Kumar vs. The Union of India & Ors.), whereby the original application has been allowed, and the order dated 22.12.2004, passed by the Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna, under the purported exercise of power conferred under Rule 29 of the C.C.S. (C.C.A) Rules 1965, has been set aside. 2 2. A brief statement of facts necessary for disposal of the present writ petition may be indicated. Respondent no.2 herein, while serving as Postal Assistant, was proceeded against departmentally under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1965). He was found and held guilty by the learned enquiry officer for the charge(s) framed against him. Agreeing with the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority by order dated 30.07.2001, inflicted punishment on the respondent no.2 herein whereby he was reverted from the cadre of Postal Assistant to the Cadre of Overseer for a period of five years with a further rider that he will not earn increment during this period. Pursuant to the said order, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, by communication dated 13.08.2001, posted respondent no.2 as Overseer. On 14.08.2001, respondent no.2 filed application before the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, seeking stay of operation of the order passed in the departmental proceedings on the ground that the date from which the order shall take effect has not been disclosed in the punishment order. It further appears that respondent no.2 proceeded on leave, and subsequently preferred appeal against the order inflicting punishment on him. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was ultimately disposed of on 26.11.2001, whereby the punishment inflicted upon respondent no.2 was modified, and it was directed that his two increments shall remain withheld for three years without cumulative effect. 3. The authorities received certain complaints about 3 the corrupt means adopted by respondent no.2 in obtaining lesser punishment in appeal by the appellate authority. Resultantly, the matter was reviewed, and the Chief Post Master General (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPMG’) issued show-cause notice to respondent no.2 on 19.08.2003, soliciting response on the satisfaction of the appropriate authority that the charges proved in course of the proceedings called for a severe punishment. Such response was to be submitted within 10 days of the notice. Respondent no.2, by communication dated 25.08.2003, requested the authority for extension of time by 20 days. Such request was allowed. He was thereafter given several opportunities to appear and file show-cause. It appears from the record that ultimately one representation was filed on behalf of the respondent no.2. However, he did not appear for personal hearing for which appropriate notice was issued and served on him. 4. Respondent no.2, in the meantime, approached the learned Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 749 of 2003. The same was initially heard and interim order was passed on 03.09.2003, directing the authorities not to take coercive steps against respondent no.2 without personal hearing to the applicant (respondent no.2 herein). The Chief Post Master General, on a consideration of the materials on record, including the representation filed on behalf of the respondent no.2, revised the appellate order and it was directed that respondent no.2 shall be reduced to the cadre of Postman in the scale of pay of Rs. 3050- 75-3950-80-4590, at the minimum of the scale of pay of Postman 4 for a period of five years with effect from 01.01.2005. It was further directed therein that, on expiry of the aforesaid period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay and he will lose his seniority in Postal Assistant cadre. The learned Tribunal by the impugned order interfered with the said order passed by the CPMG in terms of Rule 29 of the Rules. Hence the writ petition at the instance of the postal authorities. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order of the learned Tribunal submits that the reason(s) assigned by the learned Tribunal for interfering with the order are unsustainable in law. It is next submitted that Rule 29 does not contemplate any limitation. It is next highlighted that it is not a case of double jeopardy. It is further submitted that reliance placed by the learned Tribunal on Section 19(4) of the Central Administrative Tribunal is misplaced. 6. Mr. M.P.Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2, however, supported the impugned order. 7. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that respondent no.2, during the relevant time, was occupying a position in the workers’ union. He was, in fact, elected secretary of the union. The charge(s) levelled against him seems to be serious as he had forcibly obstructed in disposal/ removal of certain properties belonging to the postal department under the orders of the superior authority. It further appears from the record that respondent no.2, had earlier also faced a 5 departmental proceeding in which he was appropriately punished. Rule 29 of the Rules (hereinafter referred to as Rules 1965) provides for revision of the orders passed on the departmental proceedings. Since the interpretation of the Rule is involved , it is apt to quote the entire rule itself:- “29(I) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules- (i) the President; or (ii) the Comptroller and Auditor General, in the case of a Government servant serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department; or (iii) the post and Telegraphs Board, in the case of a Government servant serving in or under the Post and Telegraphs Board; or (iv) the head of a department directly under the Central Government, in the cases of a Government servant serving in a department or office, ( not being the Secretariat or the Post and Telegraphs Board), under the Control of such head of a department; or (v) the appellate authority, within six months of the date of the order proposed to be reviewed; or (vi) any other authority specified in this behalf by the President by a general or special order, and within such time as may be prescribed in such general or special order; may at any time, either on his or its own motion or otherwise call for the records of any inquiry and review any order made under these rules or under the rules repealed by rule 34 from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred or from which no appeal is allowed, after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary, and may- (a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; or (b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed; or (c) remit the case to the authority which made the order, or to any other authority directing such authority to make such 6 further inquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or (d) pass such other orders as it may deem fit:- Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any reviewing authority unless the Government servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses [v] to [ix] of rule 11 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be reviewed to any of the penalties specified in those clauses, no such penalty shall be imposed except after an inquiry in the manner laid down in rule 14 and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the Government servant concerned of showing cause against the penalty proposed on the evidence adduced during the inquiry and except after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary:- Provided further that no power of review shall be exercised by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Posts and Telegraphs Board or the head of department, as the case may be, unless- (i) the authority which made the order in appeal; or (ii) the authority to which an appeal would lie, where no appeal has been preferred, is subordinate to him. (2) No proceeding for review shall be commenced until after:- (i) the expiry of the period of limitation for an appeal; or (ii) the disposal of the appeal, where any such appeal has been preferred. (3) An application for review shall be dealt with in the same manner as it if were an appeal under these rules.” From Annexure-1, appended to this writ petition, it appears that the CPMG has already been notified as the competent authority to exercise the powers conferred on the authority under Rule 29 of the Rules. A bare perusal of the rules would show that, in fact, no limitation and/or time frame is provided for exercise of the said power conferred on the authority. The competent 7 authority, in fact, can act suo motu. Facts of the case would show that the revisional authority on getting written complaint about the manner respondent no.2 obtained a lesser punishment on appeal preferred by him. He acted in his own discretion and called for the entire records, and after being satisfied show-cause was issued to the respondent no.2. On his request, the matter was adjourned on several occasions. The document placed at Annexure-3, would show that he was given several opportunities of personal hearing. Respondent no.2, however, did not avail of all these opportunities afforded to him by the appropriate authority. Looking to the first order passed by the learned Tribunal on the original application preferred by the respondent no.2, it appears to us that the Tribunal itself permitted the proceedings to continue but only after affording him an opportunity of personal hearing. Records indicate that respondent no.2 was afforded more than adequate opportunity of personal hearing. In that view of the matter, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal that the order dated 22.12.2004 (Annexure-5) is hit by sub-clause 4 of Section 19 does not appear to be sound and sustainable in law. So far as the next reason assigned by the learned Tribunal is concerned, looking to the gravamen of charge, we find that it was a case of gross indiscipline. Respondent no.2 was bound to carry out the lawful orders of the superior authorities. It further appears to us that the appellate authority without proper application of mind and due regard to the gravamen of charge(s) which was found proved during the enquiry let off respondent no.2 with a lesser 8 punishment without recording cogent reasons therefor. In that view of the matter, invocation of the power conferred on the revisional authority cannot be said to be unjustified and/or unwarranted. In fact, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the appropriate authority has unduly been interfered with by the learned Tribunal. Such interference by the Tribunal, as has happened in the present case, is subversive to discipline and efficient administration and cannot be countenanced. 8. In the result, we allow this writ petition. The impugned order dated 08. 03.2005, passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 749 of 2003 (Annexure-7) is hereby quashed. We restore the order dated 22.12.2004 (Annexure-5). There shall be no order as to costs. I agree S.K.Katriar,J. Patna High Court, Dated the 8th April,2010 Sym/NAFR ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.) (S.K.Katriar,J)