(1.) The petitioner is the applicant in O.A No. 582 of 2006, in which he challenged Annexure -A4 order removing him from service and Annexures -A5 and A6 orders rejecting his appeal and revision respectively. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the O.A. The facts leading to the case are as follows.
(2.) The petitioner had been working as an Extra Departmental Delivery Agent, (subsequently designated as Gramin Dak Sevak), in Elampazhannur Post Office since 1982. He was put off duty from 7.4.2000 onwards. According to the petitioner, there were no complaints against him at the relevant time and he was kept in darkness as to the reasons for the put off duty. Thereafter on 27.6.2001, he was compelled to give a statement, under coercion and on dictation by the superior officers of Chadayamangalam Post Office. Annexure -A1 memo of charges along with statement of allegations was issued to him on 18.09.2001 under Rule 10(1) of Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rule 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the '2001 Rules'). Annexure -A1, which is part of Ext. P1, contained 3 articles of charges all in respect of treating registered letters addressed to the Headmaster, Elapampazhannur as delivered without getting signature of the addressee. The first charge was that, the petitioner while working as EDDA/MC, on 24.9.1999, treated TVM RL 9968 addressed to the Headmaster, Parayad LPS, Elampazhannoor, as delivered without obtaining the signature or thumb impression of the addressee or her authorised agent in the receipt to be signed by the addressee and thereby violated the provisions of Rule 127(1) of Postal Manual Volume VI Part III, and thus failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion of duty as envisaged in Rule 17 of P & T EP agents (C&S) Rules, 1961 (now Rule 21 of 2001 Rules,). Second charge related to the delivery of TVM RL 49533 on 5.2.2000 and third charge related to delivery of TVM RL 12152 on 24.3.2000, all to the Headmaster, Parayad LPS, Elampazhannoor. In the statement of imputation annexed to the articles of charges it was stated that, the Headmistress of the school Sr. Aleykutty Abraham, in her statement given before the Inspector of Post Offices on 26.6.2001, had stated that she did not receive the 3 postal articles, though she was on duty on 24.9.1999, 5.2.2000 and 24.3.2000 i.e all the 3 days on which the registered postal articles were alleged to have been delivered. She further stated that, the postman had not delivered to her any of these articles and her signature was also not obtained for the same. Further she disowned the signatures appearing on the receipts, shown as that of the addressee. She had given her specimen signature in separate sheet of paper. It was further alleged that the petitioner, who was entrusted with the registered postal articles on 24.9.1999, 5.2.2000 and 24.3.2000, addressed to the Headmaster, Parayad L.P.S, for delivery under acquittance in the B.O journal, treated those articles as delivered and returned the receipts signed by the addressee duly entered in his postman book on the respective dates. It was further stated that, the petitioner in his statement dated 27.6.2001 given in writing before the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Offices (SDP), Kottarakkara stated that, he received the said postal articles on the respective dates duly invoiced in the B.O slips of the respective dates from Chadayamangalam SO and those articles were entrusted to him for delivery on the respective dates under acquittance in the B.O journal. He returned the receipts duly signed by the addressee after duly entering the same in his postman book treating the registered letter as delivered. He further stated that, 4 persons from Ayur threatened him that, registered letters received from Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram and addressed to the Headmistress should be given to one 'Manaf' and that, due to their threat, he gave those registered letters to those persons and thereafter he himself signed on the receipts as to those postal articles. He stated that, he had not delivered the registered letter to the Headmistress, Parayad LPS and that the signature of addressee appearing in the receipt was not that of the Headmistress. On the basis of the aforesaid statements it was alleged that, the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as envisaged in Rule 17 of P & T ED Agents (C&S) Rules, 1964 (Rule 21 of 2001 Rules and acted in violation of Rule 127(1) of the Postal Manual Volume VI Part III. The list of documents and list of witnesses were also annexed to the articles of charges, apart from the statement of allegations.
(3.) The Assistant Superintendent of Post Office (OS), South Sub Division, Kollam, was appointed as the inquiry officer. SWs 1 to 4 were examined and documents S1 to S15 were marked on the side of the Department. The petitioner got himself examined as DW1 on 19.3.2002. The statement obtained from the Headmistress was marked as S1 and statement given by the petitioner on 27.6.2001 was marked as S15. Written briefs were submitted by the Presenting Officer as well as the delinquent employee - the petitioner. Thereafter, the inquiry officer filed Annexure -A2 report dated 27.5.2002, finding the petitioner guilty of all the 3 charges. A copy of Annexure -A2 inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his objections against the inquiry report as per Annexure -A3 on 30.10.2002. In this representation as well as in his written brief, the petitioner's case was that, S15 statement was one obtained under coercion on dictation by his superior officers at the time of preliminary inquiry and that the evidence adduced during the course of the inquiry alone can be relied on in proof of the charges levelled against him; in his self examination, he had denied the statements in S15. He stated that the signatures in the receipts were signed by the addressee herself; there was no independent witness to corroborate the version of the Headmistress. He stated that the signature should have been sent for expert opinion. He therefore requested to exonerate him from the charges. He further stated that, he was the only earning member of his family consisting of his wife, 2 daughters and aged mother and he does not own any landed property. He therefore requested to take a lenient view and to reinstate him in service.