Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1122 of 2007
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
RESPONDENT:
P.K. KUTTAPPAN
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/02/2007
BENCH:
Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN & ALTAMAS KABIR
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.16478 of 2005)
Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN, J.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
Heard Mr.T.S.Doabia, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants and Mr.G.Prakash, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent.
The above appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dt.25.01.2005 passed by the High Court of Kerala in
O.P.No.19374 of 2002 affirming the order passed by the Tribunal
ordering reinstatement with 50% of the back allowances.
Our attention was drawn to the charges framed against
the respondent herein. The charges reads thus :-
" Article 1
That Sri P.K.Kuttappan while working as EDDA
Parakkadavu failed either to deliver or return to the
Branch Postmaster 38 ordinary postal Articles
entrusted to him for delivery on 16.3.1996, 18.3.1996
and 19.3.1996 and thereby failed to maintain absolute
devotion to duty violating the provisions of Rule 17
of the P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules,
1964.
Article 2
That Sri P.K.Kuttappan while working as EDDA
Parakkadavu did not deliver RL 1075 of Bijapur
addressed to Sri.I.M.Thomas, Irimpan house,
Poovathussery, Parakkadavu entrusted to him for
delivery on 4.3.96 and subsequent days but returned
the article undelivered finally with false remarks on
19.3.96 and there by failed to maintain absolute
devotion to duty violating the provisions of Rule 17
of the P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules,
1964.
Article 3
That Sri P.K.Kuttappan while working as EDDA
Parakkadavu did not deliver RL 979 of
Poovathussery addressed Omana Thomas C/o
I.M.Thomas, Irimpan, Poovathussery, Parakkadavu
entrusted to him on 9.3.96 and subsequent days but
returned it undelivered with final false remark on
19.3.96 and there by failed to maintain absolute
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
devotion to duty violating the provisions of Rule 17
of the P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules,
1964.
Article 4
That Sri P.K.Kuttappan while working as EDDA
Parakkadavu did not deliver or serve intimation on
VP B-45241 of Bombay GPO addressed to Mrs.
Omana Thomas, Poovathussery, Parakkadavu which
was entrusted to him on 12.3.1996 and subsequent
days but returned with false remarks "Home
continuously locked" finally on 18.3.96 and thus
failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty violating
the provisions of Rule 17 of the P&T ED Agents
(Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964."
In our opinion, the charges are very serious in nature.
However, the Tribunal and the High court taking a lenient view
of the matter ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages.
In our opinion, the respondent, if at all, should have been
reinstated in service only without 50% back wages and,
therefore, the said part of the order passed by the Tribunal and
as affirmed by the High Court requires modification. We,
therefore, modify the order passed by the Tribunal and as
affirmed by the High Court and order only reinstatement and
delete the direction in regard to payment of 50% back wages.
The respondent shall be reinstated within one week from today.
It is also pertinent to notice that the Special Leave
Petition was filed on 23.06.2005. This Court on 29.07.2005 has
ordered only notice on the application for condonation of delay,
Special Leave Petition and also on the prayer for interim relief.
Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to several dates and no
interim order was granted in favour of the appellant-Union of
India. Under such circumstances, the Union of India ought to
have given effect to the order passed by the High Court
dt.25.01.2005. Since there is no stay, the respondent, in our
opinion, shall be entitled for reinstatement from 25.01.2005 and
he is also entitled for salary and other perks from that date.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
No costs.