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 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 31473 of 2004(S) -------------------------- OA.1011/2001 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ C.N.HARISH, FORMERLY POSTMAN, KOTTAYAM H.P.O., CHERUKUNNATHU, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-4. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2. THE SENIOR POSTMASTER, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI. 5. THE MEMBER PERSONAL (P), POSTAL SERVICES BOARD, NEW DELHI. 6. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1TOR6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.31473/2004 APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DT.16.10.1996 (ANNEXURE A1 IN O.A.NO.1011/2001) EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.31.12.1996 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IMPOSING PUNISHMENT ON THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXT.P2. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES DISMISSING EXT.P3 DT.30.09.1997(ANNEXURE A3 IN O.ANO.1011/2001) EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RULE 29 OF THE CCS(CCA) RULES (ANNEXURE A4 IN O.A.1011/2001) DT.23.3.1999) EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.11.10.1998 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DISMISSING EXT.P5 (ANNUXE A5 IN O.A.1011/2001). EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RULE 29A OF THE CCS (CCA) RULES DT.31.12.2000 ANNEXURE A6 IN OA 1011/2001) EXT.P8: COPY OF THE O.A.FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH WITHOUT ANNEXURES DT.16.10.2001. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C-17013/70/2001-VP DT.4.3.202 DISMISSING EXT.P7 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN THE OA ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS ANNEXED THERETO DT.30.4.2002. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.23.03.2004 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DISMISSING THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.31473 OF 2004 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner was a dismissed employee of the postal department. The appeal and revision attempted against the dismissal order were also rejected. So, he filed O.A.No.1011/2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging those orders. The said Original Application was dismissed by the C.A.T by Ext.P11 order dated 23.3.2004. This writ petition is filed challenging the said order. 2. The main ground urged before us is that the punishment of removal from service has been imposed on him by an officer who is lower in rank, when compared to the appointing authority, who was the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices. The order of removal from service was passed by Senior Post Master, Kottayam. So, the the order of removal from service is vitiated for the violation of the provisions W.P.(C) No.31473/2004 2 contained in Article 311 of the Constitution of India, it is submitted. But, we notice that no such ground was raised in the Original Application filed before the C.A.T. Ext.P8 is the copy of the Original Application. But, the learned counsel for the applicant before the C.A.T tried to raise that point. But, the Tribunal declined to consider that point for the reason that it was not raised in the Original Application. The relevant portion of the order of the C.A.T reads as follows: “6. Learned counsel raised the contention that the authority who issued the order of removal from service not being his appointing authority, the order is without jurisdiction and is void. A question of law can be raised even without pleading. But whether the authority who issued the impugned order is a subordinate or not to the authority who appointed the applicant, is not a question of law, but is a question of fact. It has been considered by the appellate authority and it has been held that the impugned order was issued by the competent authority, an authority equivalent to the one who appointed the applicant. This finding in the appellate order has not been challenged in this O.A. Hence, we find no force in this argument.” 3. We find that the above quoted decision of the C.A.T cannot be said to be suffering from any legal infirmity. It is an order within jurisdiction. It cannot be described as perverse. W.P.(C) No.31473/2004 3 Therefore, this Court is not justified in interfering with the decision of the C.A.T on this point, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays, he may be given a chance to amend the Original Application and for that he may be given liberty to move the C.A.T for review of Ext.P11 order. In view of the above submission, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights, if any, of the petitioner to move the C.A.T for appropriate reliefs as hinted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps