UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. B. ANILKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext. P-2 order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 180/00869 of 2016 directing the third respondent in the Original Application (3rd petitioner herein) to reinstate the applicant in service [who was continuing on suspension from 16.1.2014], with arrears of pay, in a post office other than the one in which fraud was allegedly committed and to keep a close watch on the work and conduct of the applicant, is under challenge in the Original Petition preferred at the instance of the respondents in the Original Application.

(2.) When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 10.4.2017, an interim order was passed, staying the operation of Ext. P-2 order, to the extent it has directed payment of arrears on reinstatement, for a period of two months. The interim order was extended subsequently. The first respondent entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit in I.A. No. 1292 of 2017 producing copies of the relevant documents as Exts. R1(a) and R1(b) pointing out that there is clear suppression of material facts on the part of the petitioners, in so far as the reinstatement of the respondent/applicant in service, pursuant to Ext. P-2 order, has not been brought to light. A copy of the said order has been produced as Ext. R1(a). The interim order was sought to be vacated accordingly, upon which this Court directed the petitioners to explain the facts and figures.

(3.) Pursuant to the said direction given on 21.7.2017, an affidavit dated 27.7.2017 has been filed, pointing out that Ext. R1(e) order passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices was fearing the course of Contempt of Court proceedings before the Tribunal and that according to him, it was only a provisional order. It is also conceded that the factual position as to passing of Ext. R1(a) was unfortunately omitted to be mentioned in the Original Petition and that he regretted the position, in turn expressing apology for the omission. A copy of the order of reinstatement dated 28.12.2016 is produced as Ext. P-3 along with the above affidavit; which shows that copies of Ext. P-3 were marked to different authorities. The respondent has filed an additional counter affidavit along with I.A. No. 1460 of 2017, seeking to accept some additional documents. The original of the order dated 28.12.2016, served to the respondent, has been produced as Ext. R1(c), wherein there is no endorsement as to the marking of copies to anybody else and in the said circumstance, the document produced as Ext. P-3 marking copies to various authorities is stated as a fabricated one. It is also pointed out that, pursuant to filing of M.A No. 228 of 2017 before the Tribunal, referring to the non-compliance of the direction given in Ext. P-2, a further direction was given by the Tribunal on 2.3.2017, whereby the arrears of pay and allowances were ordered to be disbursed within one month. A copy of the M.A is produced as Ext. R1(e), while copy of the order is produced as Ext. R1(f).