P. BEEVI Vs. GOPALAN. N.T. AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Original Petition CAT is filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in Original Application No. 229 of 2013 dated 14.11.2014 in as much as it contains observations against the petitioner who was not a party to the Original Application. The petitioner against whom observations were made in the judgment had filed Review Application No. 180/4/15 which was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by order dated 18.5.2015.

(2.) THE first respondent, who was the applicant before the Tribunal had filed the Original Application challenging Annexure A3 order transferring him, a Sub Post Master, from Ponnani South Post Office to the Marancheri Post Office. It was stated that he is a physically handicapped person having an orthopaedic disability of over 50%, and that his transfer was unjustified and illegal. A reply statement was filed by the respondents in the Original Application on 15.5.2013 contending that the Member of Parliament of Ponnani Constituency had reported a complaint against the applicant on 31.10.2012 alleging that the petitioner herein who was the Chairperson of the Ponnani Municipality, had complained that the applicant was behaving badly towards the public and should be transferred. It is stated that an enquiry was conducted by the Inspector, Posts, Ponnani Sub Division and statements of the petitioner and other Mahila Pradhan Agents were recorded. The Regional Office of Posts thereupon directed the transfer of the applicant, it was stated. It was further stated that similar complaints had arisen at the Tavanur Sub Post Office where he had worked earlier and disciplinary action was taken against the first respondent. The applicant thereafter filed a rejoinder to the reply raising serious allegations of misappropriation and fraud against the petitioner. Annexures A14 and A15 documents were produced by him alleging that the petitioner who was also a Mahila Pradhan Agent had collected amounts towards Post Office Recurring Deposit but failed to credit the amounts to the accounts of the account holders. The petitioner apparently was warned not to repeat her conduct and an enquiry was also ordered but it was contended that no action was taken against her. It was also alleged that it was at the petitioner's instance that the first respondent had been transferred out from Ponnani. However, even at the stage, no steps were taken to implead the petitioner as a party in the Original Application. On these pleadings, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the O.A. filed with the following prayers:

(3.) AFTER adverting to the pleadings and the documents produced by the first respondent, the Tribunal by order dated 14th November 2014 held that the respondents had trivialised the serious allegations made against the petitioner and that it is evident from the pleadings that it is the displeasure of the petitioner towards the first respondent which paved the way for his transfer. The Tribunal held as follows: