The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 13813 of 2010 Haribandhu Rout Petitioner Mr. Pravat Kumar Padhi, Advocate …. -versus- Union of India and Others …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K. Parhi, Asst. Solicitor General CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 03.03.2022 06. 1. The writ petition is restored to the file in view of the order passed today in CMAPL No.46 of 2022. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 23rd November, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (CAT) dismissing the Petitioner’s O.A. No.598 of 2005 and the subsequent order dated 20th November, 2009 passed by the CAT dismissing R.A. No.17 of 2006. 3. The background facts are that the Petitioner was appointed as the Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM) presently called GDSBPM, at the Podamarai Branch Post Office under Mahanga Sub-Post Office in Cuttack North Division in 1975. He continued as such till 5th August, 1992. In respect of certain allegations of misconduct against the Petitioner, an enquiry was Page 1 of 5 initiated. By an order dated 5th August, 1992 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices of North Division the Petitioner was placed ‘off duty’. However, according to the Petitioner, the ‘put off duty order’ was not handed over to him simultaneously. He accordingly, filed O.A. No.37 of 1993 before the CAT for a direction to the Opposite Parties to produce the said order and for the CAT to quash it. In response to the said application, the Opposite Parties filed a reply enclosing a copy of the put off duty order. According to the Petitioner, at the time of final hearing of the said OA No.37 of 1993 he was unable to remain present and the OA came to be dismissed. 4. After the introduction of exgratia compensation with effect from 13th January, 1997 the Petitioner made a representation to the Superintendent of Posts (Opposite Party No.4) on 6th September, 1997 with reminders on 18th July 1999, 7th and 8th December, 1999. 5. On 4th January, 2000 a charge sheet was issued with the allegation against the Petitioner being that he participated in the Panchayat Samiti Election held on 1st June, 1992. This culminated in an order dated 31st March, 2003 passed by the Opposite Party No.4 removing the Petitioner from service. According to the Petitioner, he appealed against the said order to the Director of Postal Services (Opposite Party No.3) on 23rd August 2003. When the appeal was not disposed of, the Petitioner filed OA No.642 of 2003 which came to be disposed of by the CAT on 8th October, Page 2 of 5 2003 with a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to dispose of the appeal on merits. 6. After Opposite Party No.3 dismissed the appeal, the Petitioner filed a revision petition before the Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle (Opposite Party No.2) who, by order dated 18th January 2006, set aside the orders of Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 and remanded the matter for a de novo enquiry from the stage of requisition of additional documents. 7. According to the Petitioner, Opposite Party No.4 did not supply him the additional documents and also did not correct the charge sheet. The enquiry kept pending for more than a decade and the Petitioner was without subsisting allowance. Accordingly, the Petitioner approached the CAT again in OA No.598 of 2005 for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay him ex gratia amount during the put off duty period i.e. 13th January, 1987 to 31st March, 2003. Before the CAT it was pointed out by the Opposite Parties that in the same order dated 18th January, 2006 ordering de novo inquiry, Opposite Party No.2 had specifically observed that the Petitioner would not be entitled to any ex gratia. 8. The CAT, in the impugned order, adverted to Rule 9(3) of the EDAs (C & S) Rules, 1964 which was on par with the Rule 12(3) of the GDS Conduct and Employment Rules, 2001. Under the proviso to note 2 under Rule 12(3) a ‘sevak’ who is absconding or remains absent unauthorizedly and is subsequently put off duty, shall not be entitled to any compensation as exgratia payment. In Page 3 of 5 the earlier round of litigation before the CAT the Petitioner had not prayed for any ex gratia compensation for the aforementioned period. When the SDIP, Salepur visited the Podamarai Post Office on 10th August, 1992 for serving the put off duty order, the Petitioner was found absent. It was reported that the Petitioner had instigated the villagers to humiliate the SDIP and threatened him for which an FIR had been lodged against the villagers at Mahanga Police Station by the SDIP. The put off duty order was returned with the endorsement that the Petitioner was long absent; had not resumed the duty and his whereabouts was not known. 9. In view of the specific bar in the proviso to Rule 12 (3), the CAT declined relief. The review application was also dismissed since the original order was based on the materials available and there was no error apparent on the face of the record. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner could not have been denied the ex gratia amount since the disciplinary enquiry was not concluded for a long period in time. He further submitted that the exgratia could be denied only after affording the sevak an opportunity of hearing. 11. The fact remains that the proviso to Rule 12 (3) under note 2 contains an express bar for exgratia payment where a ‘sevak’ is absconding from service for a long period in time. The factual finding in this regard has not been able to be contradicted by the Petitioner with reference to any material to show that in fact he was not absconding. In the present case, with the conduct of the Page 4 of 5 sevak being such that he was disentitled to exgratia payment, no prejudice could be said to have been caused to him as a result of non-compliance with the procedural requirement. The fact remains that the Petitioner has even now been unable to explain his long absence from duty. 12. The Court finds no grounds being made out for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Chief Justice (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Judge (A.K. Mohapatra) S.K. Jena/P.A. Page 5 of 5