IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 23275 of 2010(S) -------------------------- OA.789/2003 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE MEMBER (P), POSTAL SERVICES BOARD, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 3. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 33 4. THE POST MASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI. 6. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, (HEADQUARTERS), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 33 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC RESPONDENTS: --------------- P.V.MOHANDAS, S/O.P.V.VAVA, AGED 50 YEARS, RETIRED ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, TRICHUR POSTAL DIVISION, RESIDING AT "REVATHY", CC NO.26/1358, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM. THEVARA P.O., COCHIN-680 213. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE METHOD OF RECRUITMENT. P1(a): TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.13.3.2006 IN I.A. 789/2003 OF THE C.A.T., ERNAKULAM BRANCH. P2: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.35435/2007 DT.16.1.2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P3: TRUE COPY OF O.A. NO.789/03 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES FILED BEFORE CAT, ERNAKULAM. P4: TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES IN O.A. NO.789/03 BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.28.7.2009 IN O.A. NO.789/03 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM. P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN RA NO.47/2009 IN O.A.789/03 DT.4.11.2009 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.1.4.2010 ISSUED BY 3RD PETITIONER. P8: TRUE COPY OF MA NO.61/2010 IN OA NO.789/2003 FILED BEFORE THE CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH. P9: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.16.6.2010 IN MA NO.61/2010 IN OA NO.789/2003 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. P10: LETTER DT.4.8.2010 ISSUED BY 4TH PETITIONER RECALLING EXT.P7 ORDER DT.1.4.2010 IN OBEDIENCE OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT.30.7.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(a): TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DT.16.2.2010 FILED BY RESPONDENTS IN M.A. NO.61/2010 IN O.A. 789/2003. R1(b): TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.23.2.2010 IN M.A. NO.61/2010 IN O.A. NO.789/2003 OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. R1(c): TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.16.6.2010 OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN M.A. NO.61/2010 IN O.A. NO.789/2003 OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.23275 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Order under challenge is the one issued by the C.A.T. confirming disciplinary action but holding that the punishment of compulsory retirement given to the respondent is disproportionate to the gravity of offence proved against him. The case of the department is that in the selection of E.D. Delivery Agents and E.D. Messenger, the respondent declined appointment to the highest mark holder and gave it to the second in position. Respondent's counsel submitted that appointment is based on assessment of capacity of the candidate and SSLC mark is not the sole criteria as contended by the department. We do not think there is any need to go into this question because Tribunal confirmed the order of the department in regard to the indiscipline leveled against the respondent. The Tribunal has only held that the offence charged is such that it does not warrant a punishment of the kind given to the respondent. There is also no antecedent against the respondent and W.P.C. 23275/2010 2 this appears to be the first case in which he is involved. Further, those persons appointed by the respondent under the proceedings found irregular by the department, are stated to be still continuing. We do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal because in our view, the respondent is already kept out of service for nine years and he is stated to have another three years of service for retirement. Therefore, we feel the department should consider a lesser punishment to the respondent as suggested by the Tribunal. Of course we do not think respondent should be given wages for the period he has not worked because he is already receiving pension. The department is absolutely free to exercise their discretion in awarding a suitable punishment to the respondent after giving opportunity to him. We also make it clear that for awarding punishment, no further enquiry is required and based on findings in enquiry which has become final by virtue of Tribunal's order confirmed by us and in accordance with the Rules and norms followed by the department, punishment will be considered. Two months' time is granted to pass final orders in the matter. In order to avoid unnecessary litigation, the department, in our W.P.C. 23275/2010 3 view, should go through the records and send a proposal to the respondent about the punishment they propose, give him an opportunity to represent against the same and pass the order thereafter. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms