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 THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 31637 of 2004(S) --------------------------------------- O.A.NO.87/2002 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- C.M.PARAMESWARAN S/O. GOVINDAN, AGED 61 YEARS, RETIRED POSTMAN, RESIDING AT MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEMMANTHATTA, KACHERI - 680 501. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ, SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN, SRI.SURAJ.S, SRI.P.A.KUMARAN, SMT.VINEETHA B. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. 2. MEMBER (PERSONNEL), POSTAL SERVICES BOARD, NEW DELHI. 3. CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE TRIVANDRUM 4. DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVIES, OFFICE OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI. 5. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE. 6. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, TRICHUR DIVISION, TRICHUR. BY P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. S.G, ADV. SRI.R.SATHISH KUMAR, ADDL.CGSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON 14/02/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.31637/2004-S: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DTD. 30/11/1993 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE S.S.P.O, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 12/12/1996 OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 30/12/1996 BEFORE THE R.5. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SSP/OD/03/95-96 DTD. 24/04/1997 OF THE R.5. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 10/06/1997. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ST/7 - 25/97 DTD. 24/04/1998 ISSUED BY THE R.4. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26/04/2001 IN O.A. 947/1999 OF THE TRIBUNAL. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26/04/2001, IN I.A. 936/1998 ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DTD. 02/05/2001 TO THE R.3. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ST/E11/2001 DTD. 31/10/2001. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION 87/2002 FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL (WITHOUT ANNEXURES). EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DTD. 11/07/2002 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.A. 87/2002, ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES THEREOF. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 13/09/2004, IN O.A. 87/2002 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).NO.31637 of 2004-S - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. Aggrieved by the dismissal of O.A. No.87/2002 filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. The petitioner approached the Tribunal challenging the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority confirming the punishment imposed on him pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents. All the authorities concurred with the findings of facts as regards the charges proved in the enquiry and the punishment imposed. Before the Tribunal and before this court, the main argument raised is that the penalty imposed combines two punishments, i.e. reduction to lower post with a further reduction to fix the pay at the minimum time-scale of pay which is impermissible in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though that question was raised before the Tribunal and noted by it, no specific finding has been rendered on that aspect. 3. The petitioner was working as a Postal Assistant when Ext.P1 WPC 31637/2004 -2- charge memo was issued to him. Ext.P2 is the enquiry report and after considering his explanation, the penalty was imposed as per Ext.P4. He was reduced to the lower post of Postman in a particular time-scale of pay until he is found fit by the competent authority after a period of three years from the date of the order to the original post of Postal Assistant. On such reduction, his pay shall be fixed at the minimum of time-scale of pay. It was made clear that this penalty will not operate to postpone his future increments. In fact, this punishment has been confirmed by the appellate authority in Ext.P6 and by the revisional authority in Ext.P10. 4. Heard the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri M.R. Hariraj and by Shri Parameswaran Nair, learned Asst. Solicitor General who appeared for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the relevant rules 11 and 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules and contended that the disciplinary authority is not entitled to combine two penalties, which in this case, has resulted in double jeopardy. It is contended by the learned counsel that there is no justification for the disciplinary authority to provide a further stipulation in Ext.P4 that on his reduction to the lower post, his pay shall be fixed at the minimum of time- scale of pay. It is pointed out that this is beyond the power conferred on the WPC 31637/2004 -3- disciplinary authority as per the rules. 5. Shri Parameswaran Nair, Learned Asst. Solicitor General contended that the legal position is well settled by various decisions of this court and the Apex Court to the effect that punishments can be imposed individually or collectively. The decision of a Division Bench of this court in Gopalan v. Chief Conservator of Forests (2000 (1) KLT 855) is also relied on in support of the above argument. 6. Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules provides various penalties. Sub-rules (iii)(a) and (vi) are relevant here, which are extracted below: “(iii)(a) reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a period not exceeding 3 years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension; and (vi) reduction to lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or service which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the Government servant to the time-scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post or service from which the Government servant was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade, post or service.” In fact, sub-rule (iii)(a) provides for reduction to a lower stage in the time- scale of pay. Sub-rule (vi) provides for reduction to a grade, post or service. The opening words of Rule 11 shows that penalties can be imposed on a Government servant for good and sufficient reasons. Identical question was considered in Gopalan's case (2000 (1) KLT 855), wherein also the WPC 31637/2004 -4- wordings of Rule 11 of the Kerala Civil Services (CCA) Rules are the same. It was held therein as follows: “Punishments 1 and 2 imposed in the case at hand are covered by clauses (iii) sub-rule (1), while the third punishment is relatable to clause (iv). Rule 11 set forth the punishments that are available for imposition when a delinquent officer is guilty in the departmental proceedings. The authority competent to impose punishment is left with the discretion of imposing any of the punishments individually or collectively. Punishments can be imposed individually or collectively at the discretion of the concerned authority as there is nothing in the provision to show otherwise.” We are in full agreement with the above dictum. The wordings of Rule 15 of the Kerala Rules and the rules herein are also the same. Punishments can be imposed individually or collectively at the discretion of the concerned authority. 7. The Tribunal has considered the merits of the matter also. It was noticed that in the enquiry, the charges were proved beyond doubt. The Tribunal has also noticed Rule 13 of CCS (CCA) Rules also while considering the argument raised against the competency of the disciplinary authority. It was held that there is no lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal was also of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the disciplinary process and that there are no reasons to interfere with the process initiated including the merits of the charges. In exercise of the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the WPC 31637/2004 -5- Constitution of India, we can interfere with the said findings only if the view taken is perverse. Herein, all the authorities have found that the charges have been proved and there is no infirmity in the punishment imposed also. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (C.N. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ WPC 31637/2004 -6- C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . No. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 6th February, 2008.