UNION OF INDIA Vs. G BUDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question, which arises for consideration in this writ petition, is as to whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in reviewing the charge memo.

(2.) The impugned charge memo dated 31-1-2000 reads thus:- "That the said Shri G Buddappa, while working as APMG (SB), Circle Office, Hyderabad during the period from 22-6-1995 to 17-8-1998, functioned as question paper setter and Examiner in respect of Paper 'C' (dictation from Telugu and English Pieces) of the Postman Examination from amongst EDAS and Group 'D' officials in respect of Hyderabad region, held on 25-5-1997. During the said period, Shri Buddappa evaluated the answer scripts of the aforesaid Postman Examination in a faulty and indiscreet manner and without following uniform standard in awarding marks to all candidates of Hanamkonda, Sangareddy and Warangal Divisions, leading to the cancellation of the examination in respect of Paper 'C' of Hanamkonda Dn. and selection of undeserving candidates as Postman in respect of Sangareddy Dn. It is therefore, alleged that the said Shri G. Buddappa, by his aforesaid acts, failed to maintain absolute integrity, showed lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3(1) (i), 3 (1) (ii) and 3(i)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964." The learned Tribunal observed: "In the instant case what we gather from the allegations of imputations is that the applicant, was not consistent in his evaluation. At the most, it could be inferred that he was negligent in the performance of his function as Evaluator. It was no where stated that the applicant has favoured any candidate. Learned Counsel for the respondent however seeks to rely to contend that he acted with ill motive and an allegation was also made to that effect. We see no force in the contention. Mere statement that he has evaluated the papers will ill motive would not suffice. There must be sufficient basis or material or the allegation should disclose bad conduct of some sort of ill-motive on the part of the applicant. By these categorizing a person a bad one, he will not become a bad person".

(3.) In support of the aforementioned findings, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. J. Ahmed, AIR 1979 SC 1022 and the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Veerendra Prasad v. Union of India, 1986 LAB.IC 1965.