IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30107 of 2006(S)
1. SMT.K.M. THANKAMANY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHEIF POST MASTER GENERAL,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES,
3. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF
4. THE ASSISTSANT SUPERINTENDENT OF
5. THE UNION OF INDIA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :17/02/2009
O R D E R
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withdrawn amounts from the Recurring Deposit Accounts of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