IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 30107 of 2006(S) -------------------------- OA.53/2004 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SMT.K.M. THANKAMANY, W/O.K.L. VIJAYA KUMAR, EX.POSTAL ASSISTANT, ALUVA DIVISION, RESIDING AT KATTUMPURAM HOUSE, THEVARA P.O., COCHIN-682 013. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS/: --------------- 1. THE CHEIF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, CENTRAL REGION, COCHIN-682 016. 3. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, ALUVA DIVISION, ALUVA-688 101. 4. THE ASSISTSANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES (O/S), O/O. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, ERNAKULAM DIVISION (INQUIRING AUTHORITY). 5. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.30107/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF O.A.NO.53/2004 ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES THEREIN FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DT.15.06.2004 FILED BY RESPONDENTS BEFORE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, IN O.A.NO.53/2004. EXT.P3: COPY OF ORDER DT.30.06.2006 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM,IN O.A.NO.53/2004. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF SUB RULE 11(iii) of RULE 14 OF CCS (CONDUCT) RULES 1965 DT.NIL. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30107 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The applicant in O.A.No.53/2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, is the writ petitioner. She was a Postal Assistant working as the Sub Post Master of Thaikkattukara Sub Post Office during 1998. She was charge sheeted by the disciplinary authority for having fraudulently withdrawn amounts from the Recurring Deposit Accounts of three persons. 2. The allegations in brief were the following: i) She, on 28.8.1998, fraudulently withdrew Rs.13,000/- from R.D.account No. 86097 of Sri.N.J.George. ii) She, on 11.12.1997, fraudulently withdrew Rs.10,000/- from the R.D. account No.86354 of Smt.A. Jansi Ratnakumari. iii) She, on 20.5.1998, fraudulently withdraw Rs.6,000/- from the R.D. account No.86554 of Smt.Girija K.A. W.P.(C) No.30107/2006 2 Thus, she has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in contravention of Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) of Central Civil Servants (Conduct) Rule 1964. She denied the charges against her. So, an enquiry was held into the allegations. The Enquiry Officer found her guilty of all the 3 charges. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer, after examining the objections filed by the delinquent against the enquiry report. Disciplinary authority awarded the punishment of dismissal from service, which was affirmed by the appellate as well as the Revisional Authorities. Challenging those orders, Ext.P1 Original Application was filed. Those orders were produced as Annexure A9, A7 and A5 in the Original Application. She also challenged Annexure A3 Enquriy Report dated 28.1.2001. 3. The respondents in the Original Application, who are the respondents in this writ petition, resisted the application by filing Ext.P2 reply statement. They submitted that the punishment has been imposed on the applicant after following the due procedure and in accordance with law. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, dismissed the Original Application. W.P.(C) No.30107/2006 3 Before the Tribunal, the applicant tried to highlight the non- supply of a few documents and contended that the disciplinary action was taken against her in violation of the principles of natural justice. She filed a petition dated 1.7.2000 for production of documents. The available documents were produced. Main grievance highlighted by the applicant was the non production of SB-3 Cards and Error Book, concerning the Recurring Deposits. SB-3 Cards contained the signatures of the depositors. Since they were not available, specimen signature book of the Post Office was made available. Later, another request was made on 23.8.2000 seeking production of five documents. Among them the non production of second document, which is the inspection report of Thaikattukara Post Office in the year 1998 and 1999, is highlighted. According to the applicant, the said report would show that there were no adverse comments in it concerning the relevant years. The documents, requested as per the petition dt.23.8.2000, were not produced for the reason that the said request was highly belated. The said stand was upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal also. The C.A.T. noted that the request for production of documents made on 1.7.2000 was substantially complied with and the W.P.(C) No.30107/2006 4 request for production of documents made on 23.8.2000 was rightly rejected. Based on the above findings, the Original Application was dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner canvassed before us the very same point concerning non production of the records requested by her. We agree with the findings of the Tribunal that whatever documents could be produced based on the petition dated 1.7.2000 were in fact produced. The petitioner has not pleaded what prejudice has been caused to her by the production of specimen signature book instead the SB-3 card. Regarding the documents sought, as per request dated 23.8.2000, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that non furnishing of the preliminary enquiry or investigation report has prejudiced him. But, we notice that preliminary enquiry or investigation is held to decide whether the incumbent should be charge sheeted or not. Thereafter, the action is proceeded based on the charge sheet. Whatever information is collected in the preliminary enquiry or investigation will be contained in the charge sheet and in this case, we notice that the petitioner has been served with three charges, which were clear and specific W.P.(C) No.30107/2006 5 and the reports of the preliminary enquiry or investigation were unnecessary to defend the charges. At any rate, no prejudice has been pleaded or proved. The non-furnishing of the inspection report of the Post Office for the year 1998-1999 also is of no consequence. Having regard to the nature of the charges, even assuming, there is no adverse comments in the inspection report, the same will not in any way help the petitioner. 5. So, we are of the view that the contention of the petitioner that the enquiry was held in violation of principles of natural justice, for not furnishing to her the copies of some documents as requested, is devoid of any merit. We find no reason to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal. As rightly held by the Tribunal, no flaw in the decision making process, which prejudiced the petitioner has been brought out. We agree with the reasons and conclusions of the Tribunal on the above aspect. In the result the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps