J.Alwin Jeyaseelan v. The Union of India rep. By the Post Master General Central Region, TN Trichy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 22.04.2008CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRAANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARANWrit Petition No.11700 of 2003J.Alwin Jeyaseelan ..Petitionervs.1. The Union of India rep. By the Post Master General Central Region, TN Trichy.2. The Director of Postal Services, Central Region, Trichy.3. The Senior Superintendent, RMS T Division, Trichy.4. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai-104...RespondentsPRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for therecords relating to the impugned order in O.A.No.622 of 2001 dated8.3.2002 on the file of the 4th respondent and quash the same.-----For petitioner : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran For respondents: Mr.S.Udayakumar R1 to R3.-----O R D E R(Order of the Court was delivered by P.K.MISRA, J.)Heard the learned counsel for the parties. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The writ petitioner was working as a Mail Man in the PostalDepartment under the Post Master General, Central Region,Trichirappalli. Departmental proceedings were initiated against himalleging three charges. The enquiry officer found the petitionerguilty of all the charges. Subsequently, a punishment of compulsoryretirement was imposed by the disciplinary authority. The petitionerfiled an appeal, which was addressed to the Director of PostalServices. Such an appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner filedO.A.No.622 of 2001 and the Tribunal dismissed such originalapplication. Hence the present writ petition.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the followingcontentions:-(i) There is no recording of satisfaction that it was thought fitto compulsorily retire the petitioner in public interest andtherefore, the order of compulsory retirement is invalid;(ii) Even though the appeal was filed before the Director, suchan appeal was disposed of by the Post Master General, therebypreventing the petitioner from pursuing the revisional remedyavailable under the Central Civil Services (Classification Controland Appeal) Rules.(iii) The disciplinary authority, the appellate authority as wellas the Tribunal have not considered many vital contradictions in theevidence given by the witnesses; and(iv) The punishment ultimately imposed is disproportionate to thenature of delinquency; 4. In support of the first submission, the learned counsel forthe petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the SupremeCourt reported in (2005) 9 SCC 748 (Pritam Singh v. Union of India.)In the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court, in para.20, has held asfollows:-"20. In the instant case, no material on record wasplaced before the disciplinary authority, appellateauthority, revisional authority, Tribunal and before theHigh Court to reasonably form an opinion that compulsoryretirement was in public interest. The case on hand is alsonot a case of doubtful integrity. The impugned action ofcompulsorily retiring the appellant from service can betermed as arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable personcould have come to the conclusion that the appellant hadoutlived his utility as a member of the railway service andhad become a dead wood which had to be chopped off."5. We are afraid that this submission of the learned counsel forthe petitioner is totally misconceived. The Supreme Court in thedecision referred to above was dealing with a case of compulsoryretirement in accordance with F.R.56 and it was not a case of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement in a disciplinaryproceeding. It is quite well known that compulsory retirement can beone of the punishments in a disciplinary proceeding and an order ofcompulsory retirement can also be passed in accordance with F.R. 56.In the latter case, it is not considered as punishment and such anorder can be passed only if the competent authority comes to theconclusion that in the public interest, it is necessary to retire theemployee. Apart from the above, an order of compulsory retirementcan be passed as a punishment in a disciplinary proceeding. It isone of the major penalties contemplated in disciplinary proceedings.If the delinquency of serious nature is proved, it is for thedisciplinary authority to impose any punishment including the orderof compulsory retirement. In such a scenario, it is not necessary torecord specifically that the order of compulsory retirement is passedin public interest. The learned counsel for the petitioner, withoutkeeping in view such distinction between the two types of compulsoryretirements, has made the submission, which is bound to be rejected.6. The second submission made by the learned counsel for thepetitioner is to the effect that the appeal was preferred before theDirector and since it was disposed of by the superior authority, thepetitioner lost an opportunity of filing a revision. From thematerials placed on record, it appears that the departmentalauthorities in their counter filed before the Tribunal had raised thequestion of existence of alternative remedy. At that stage, thepetitioner raised a specific ground in para.5 of the rejoinder thathe was deprived of such opportunity to file a revision as the orderwas passed by the superior authority. The stand of the departmentalauthorities was to the effect that in fact, the order had been passedby the Director and only by mistake, it had not been indicated in theorder that it had emanated from the Director. 7. The question was not specifically dealt with and the Tribunalproceeded on the assumption that the appeal had been in fact disposedof by a superior authority, but it had not caused any prejudice tothe applicant. 8. On a careful perusal of the materials placed before us, it isnow apparent that in fact, the appeal was disposed of by theDirector, who was the competent authority and not by the superiorauthority. Therefore, revisional remedy was not availed. However,the petitioner (in fact, the Tribunal also) was under the impressionthat the appeal had been decided by the superior authority. Be thatas it may, since it was the stand of the department that thepetitioner should have exhausted the alternative remedy and since themain question raised by the petitioner pertains to the question ofre-appreciation of evidence including the question of proportionalityof punishment, we feel that interest of justice would be served byvacating the order of the Tribunal and observing that it would be nowopen to the petitioner to file a revision before the appropriate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ revisional authority, viz., the Chief Post Master General. If such arevision is filed within a period of three weeks from the date ofreceipt of the present order, the same shall be disposed of by therevisional authority on its own merit in accordance with law, asexpeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from thedate of filing of such revision. Since the matter had remainedpending before the Tribunal and the High Court, obviously, thequestion of limitation would not be raised and such revision shall bedecided on its own merits. It is also made clear that merely becausewe have given this liberty to the petitioner to file a revision, itshould not be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits ofthe contentions to be raised in such revision, which has to bedecided on its own merits. Along with the revision, the petitionershall enclose a copy of the present order. In view of the above order, it is not necessary to consider theother submissions.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.gs.To1. The Post Master General Union of India, Central Region, TN Trichy.2. The Director of Postal Services, Central Region, Trichy.3. The Senior Superintendent, RMS T Division, Trichy.4. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai-104.+ 1 CC To Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, Advocate SR NO.23064+ 1 CC To Mr.S.Udayakumar, Sr.C.G.S.C. Advocate SR NO.22916Writ Petition No.11700 of 2003TM[CO]GP/9.5.