IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12615 of 2009(S) -------------------------- OA.737/2007 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, IDUKKI DIVISION,THODUPUZHA-685584. 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR (POSTAL), THODUPUZHA SUB DIVISION,THODUPUZHA. 3. UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT ------------------------ SOSAMMA JOHN,GRAMIN DAK SEVAK MAIL DELIVERER,MOOLAMATTOM,IDUKKI POSTAL DIVISION. BY // THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 12615 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners are the respondents in O.A. No.737 of 2007. The said Original Application was filed by a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer. She filed O.A. No.219 of 2007 before the Tribunal praying that her period of absence from 30.12.1998 to 16.5.2002 may be treated as duty with all consequential benefits. The said Original Application was allowed by directing the competent authority to consider her application. But, her claim was rejected by Annexure A-12 order dated 22.10.2007. Challenging that order, the present Original Application, O.A. No.737 of 2007 was filed. The prayer in this O.A. was to treat her absence from 30.12.1998 to 26.4.2000 as leave without allowances and from 27.4.2000 to 16.5.2002 as duty for all purposes. 2. The applicant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for unauthorised absence for the period from 30.12.1998 and was removed from service by order dated 23.7.2001. But the Appellate Authority W.P.(C) NO. 12615/2009 2 allowed her appeal and ordered reinstatement as per Annexure A-1 order. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: “I have gone through the case file and the records of the inquiry. From the files of the case I see that appellant had represented on 6.3.2000 to the SDI. Thodupuzha Sub Division that she was under prolonged treatment in connection with her confinement and the illness of her new born baby, requesting to permit her to rejoin duty on terminating the disciplinary proceedings already initiated. I also find a series of medical certificates in support of her claim of illness. According to Rule 5 it is immaterial whether the application for leave was sent in time and was in proper form, the medical certificate was from such and such medical officer whether leave was got granted promptly etc. The stand taken by the I.O. and the A.D.A. is limited to the finding that the article of charge has been proved. In view of the discussion above I find that the article of charge does not constitute a violation of rule and there was no good and sufficient reason for initiating action against the appellant for violation of Rule-5 of ED Conduct and Service Rules, 1964. In the result the merits of the appeal need no further discussion. The impugned order of the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority is set aside. The appellant shall be reinstated forthwith taking into account the medical certificate of fitness already produced by her.” The Tribunal, based on the above appellate order and other materials on record, found that the applicant had applied for leave for the period from W.P.(C) NO. 12615/2009 3 30.12.1998 to 26.4.2000. She reported for duty on 27.4.2000, but was not allowed to rejoin duty and she was kept out of service till she was reinstated by the Appellate Authority. The Tribunal held that she is entitled to get leave from 30.12.1998 to 26.4.2000 as leave without allowances. The Tribunal also found that she was unjustifiably kept out of service after she reported for duty on 27.4.2000. So, the Tribunal ordered that the petitioner shall be paid salary normally payable to her from 27.4.2000 to 17.5.2002. Issuing the above directions, the Original Application was allowed by Ext.P3 order. Challenging Ext.P3 order, the Writ Petition is filed. We heard Mr. Thomas Thomas on behalf of Mr. P. Parameswaran Nair, learned Assistant Solicitor General. 3. In view of Annexure A-1 appellate order, we are of the view that the above direction issued by the Tribunal is fully justified on the facts of the case. The period of absence from 30.12.1998 to 26.4.2000 is supported by medical certificates. For the remaining period, the petitioner happened to be kept out of service because of the illegal commissions and omissions of the officers concerned. So, the Tribunal, in its discretion, ordered to pay full salary to her as per the TRCA concerned. The said exercise of discretion cannot be considered as illegal or perverse. It is a decision within jurisdiction and so, this Court cannot interfere with W.P.(C) NO. 12615/2009 4 the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 12615/2009 5 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.P.(C) NO.12615/2009 JUDGMENT 1st June, 2009