K. MOHAN Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE working as Postman, Chitradurga HO, the respondents issued a notification dated 3.6.2014 (Annexure A5) to conduct a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) to promote lower grade officials to Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants for the year 2014. Thereafter, the SPOs, Chitradurga, in an endorsement dated 12.6.2014 (Annexure A6) invited applications from eligible candidates for the examination. The applicant submitted his application on 22.7.2014 (Annexure A7). Meanwhile a charge memo dated 28.7.2014 was issued against the applicant (Annexure A8) and thereafter his pay was ordered to be reduced by one stage for a period of 3 months with effect from 1.9.2014 without cumulative effect (Annexure A10). Subsequently in a communication dated 12.9.2014 the applicant was denied permission to appear for the examination on the ground that a disciplinary case was pending against him.

(2.) THE applicant submits that from the time the notification was issued till he submitted his application no disciplinary action was pending or contemplated against him, nor he was undergoing any punishment. The disciplinary action was initiated in respect of alleged misconduct that had taken place about one year earlier with the intention of denying the applicant his promotion. He submits that unlike in the case of major penalty the punishment imposed under Rule 11 (iv) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965,a minor punishment, does not bar an official appearing for a departmental examination. The applicant has also quoted the instructions of the DGP&T dated 25.6.1965 to support his contention. The applicant has cited the decision of this Tribunal in K. Muralidharan Pillai v. Union of India and others reported in, [1995] 31 ATC 76 and prayed that the Tribunal use its discretionary power to allow the applicant to appear for the examination in the interest of justice and equity. The applicant submits that the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice. In this connection the applicant also submits that the examination was scheduled to be conducted on 21.9.2014 but has since been postponed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant stresses that there is no instruction in the present case that prevents a person undergoing punishment from taking an examination in the first place. Moreover he is only undergoing a minor penalty which will be completed in a short while (on 31.12.2013). Thereafter he will be free of any taint, but his chances of promotion would have been affected because of the decision of the respondents.