P.RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the unsuccessful applicant in O.A. No. 180/00416/2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam. He initially joined the Postal Department in 1982 and came up in ranks to be a Senior Superintendent of Post Offices. While he was working at Palakkad, in 2014 the petitioner was deputed and posted as Passport Officer at Malappuram, the tenure being three years, as seen from Annexure A1.

(2.) On 20.07.2015, the petitioner was suspended under Rule 10 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965: he had been in judicial custody for more than 24 hours on his having been arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation on the charge of corrupt practices. Assailing Annexure A3 order of suspension, the petitioner filed Annexure A4 departmental appeal, which resulted in his reinstatement through Annexure A5. In fact, the appellate authority revoked the petitioner's suspension through Annexure A6 order dated 08.12.2015, and later he was repatriated. But before the petitioner could be repatriated, perhaps in anticipation, he submitted Annexure A7 representation to the authorities pleading that if the petitioner was to be repatriated, he should be given reasonable time; then, Annexure A6 order of repatriation followed. Eventually, through Annexure A11, the petitioner was allotted to Odisha Circle. Assailing Annexure A6 order of repatriation and Annexure A11 allotment to Odisha Circle, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 180/00416/2016. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, through its order dated 12.01.2017, refused to interfere. Further aggrieved, the petitioner is before us.

(3.) Sri N. N. Sugunapalan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the Tribunal's Ext.P4 order on two grounds: (1) the repatriation is without any reasons; (2) the petitioner's allotment to Odisha Circle, when about five vacancies are available within the State of Kerala, is totally vindictive and perverse.