NEELAKANDA PILLAI Vs. DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, an employee of the Posts and Telegraphs Department, was suspended from service pending disciplinary action, on 16th October, 1981. A charge sheet was issued on 21st November 1981. An Enquiry Officer and presenting officer were appointed on 8th December 1981. The first sitting of the enquiry was on 15th January, 1982. There is no dispute that the petitioner participated in the proceedings. The case was then posted for evidence to 10th February 1982. The Presenting Officer subsequently made a request for adjournment; it was granted, and the enquiry was adjourned to 16th February 1982. On that occasion, the petitioner applied for adjournment on the ground that he was unwell; and the application was supported by a medical certificate. The enquiry was adjourned; and there is no dispute that the petitioner had not asked for any adjournment at any time subsequent to 16th February 1982.

(2.) It appears that the Department got suspicious about the medical certificate produced by the petitioner. They called upon him to appear before the District Medical Officer or the Civil Surgeon. He did not comply with these directions. They conducted an enquiry through the Sub Divisional Inspector in whose opinion the petitioner was not unwell, as certified by a qualified physician. The Director General therefore decided that the period of enquiry was being prolonged for reasons directly attributable to the petitioner; and in exercise of his power under F.R. 53, Ext. P-4 order was passed reducing the rate of the petitioner's subsistence allowance by 25 per cent. The challenge in this writ petition is to Ext. P-4.

(3.) The counter affidavit proceeds on the assumption that on 16th February 1982 the petitioner had asked for an adjournment for two months. On enquiry by the authorities they found that request for such a long adjournment was not justified either by the medical certificate or by the other circumstances disclosed subsequently. The reduction in the rate of subsistence allowance was ordered under the impression that the petitioner was attempting to unduly protract the enquiry. But the whole assumption on which this line of approach is made in the counter affidavit, appears to be wrong. Ext. P-7 is the application which the petitioner had filed for adjourning the enquiry from 16th February 1982. That did not involve a request for adjournment for a period of two months. The authorities could have adjourned the enquiry for two or three days and then commenced it again. The order Ext. P-1 cannot be sustained, as it proceeds on the incorrect assessment of facts and wrong inferences made therefrom. What had really happened was that the petitioner had asked for one adjournment only and that too on medical grounds. No reasonable person could infer from this circumstance alone that the petitioner was out to protract the enquiry for months together, particularly when it is seen that he was duly participating in the proceedings on every other occasion.