IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date:- 16.02.2010
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice M. CHOCKALINGAM
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice T. RAJA
W.P. No.2919 of 2010
and
M.P. No.1 of 2010
1. Union of India,
rep. by the Director of
Postal Services,
O/o. Postmaster General,
Southern Region,
Madurai 625 002.
2. The Senior Superintendent
of Post Offices,
Kovilpatti Division,
Kovilpatti 628 501. ... Petitioners
..Vs..
1. Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench,
rep. by its Registrar,
High Court Building,
Chennai 600 006.
2. P. Karpagavinayagam ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 9.7.2009 made in O.A. No.785 of 2008 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal/Madras Bench and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr. J. Venkatraj
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
This writ petition seeks to quash the order dated 9.7.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A,. No.785 of 2008, whereby the application filed by the second respondent, challenging the order of rejection of his claim treating the period from 7.3.2006 to 21.5.2008 as duty and for salary and other benefits during that period, was allowed.
2. This writ petition came to be filed under the following circumstances:-
(i) The second respondent i.e. one Karpagavinayagam was actually working as Assistant Postmaster in Tenkasi HPO. He was placed under suspension under Rule 10(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by an order dated 3.3.2006 on the specific ground that a criminal case was registered by the CBI and thereafter the case was closed on 30.3.2007 by the learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, Madurai. Thereafter, he filed O.A. No.760 of 2007 before the Tribunal, seeking to set aside the order of suspension. On enquiry, it was ordered and it was further held that he was entitled for all consequential reliefs, but insofar as other reliefs are concerned, he has to wait till the completion of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the department.
(ii) After the order was passed, the second respondent made an application before the Authority to treat the suspension period as duty and for all other consequential benefits, which was actually denied by the Department. Under such circumstances, he filed O.A. No.785 of 2008 before the Tribunal. On enquiry, the Tribunal allowed the application, recording a finding that the second respondent was entitled for regularization of the period of suspension from 7.3.2006 to 21.5.2008. The said order is being challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
3. The only contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Tribunal and equally here also is that originally, the second respondent was under suspension. It is true that the suspension was actually set aside by the Tribunal in the earlier application in O.A. No.760 of 2007 filed by the second respondent. But, at the same time, it should be taken into account the disciplinary proceedings have already been initiated and the proceedings are pending. Under such circumstances, the second respondent is not entitled for regularization as one asked for by him.
4. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looking into the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the contention put forth by the petitioner does not carry any merit whatsoever. It is not in controversy that a criminal case was registered against the second respondent and others by the C.B.I. But, later, the case was closed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, Madurai. During that period, he was kept under suspension. Only subsequent to the proceedings initiated by the C.B.I., the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the department.
5. Thereafter, he filed O.A. No.760 of 2007 before the Tribunal, seeking to set aside the suspension order. On enquiry, the Tribunal set aside the suspension order and it was also held that the second respondent was entitled for pay during that period. It is now pertinent to point out that the second respondent was suspended only pursuant to the initiation of the case by the C.B.I. It is not the case of the petitioner before this Court that the second respondent was kept under suspension on other grounds also. The second respondent was kept under suspension only because of case registered by the C.B.I. Once the case registered by the C.B.I. was closed and thereafter, the Tribunal also passed an order, setting aside the order of suspension, the second respondent was entitled for all the benefits during the relevant period.
6. The Court is unable to accept the case of the petitioner. The order passed by the Tribunal does not require any disturbance in the hands of this Court. The writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P. is also dismissed. No costs.
(M.C.J.) (T.R.J)
16.02.2010
Index :- Yes.
Internet:- Yes.
ssa.
To
1. The Director of
Postal Services,
Union of India,
O/o. Postmaster General,
Southern Region,
Madurai 625 002.
2. The Senior Superintendent
of Post Offices,
Kovilpatti Division,
Kovilpatti 628 501.
3. Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench,
rep. by its Registrar,
High Court Building,
Chennai 600 006.
M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. &
T. RAJA, J.
ssa.
W.P. No.2919 of 2010
and connected M.P.
16.02.2010