ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE BHADRACHALAM SUB DIVISION KHAMMAM POSTAL DIVISION Vs. T RAMAPPA RAO PINAPAKA MANUGURU KHAMMAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed by the Central Government challenging the Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3 of 2001, dated: 12-3-2003.

(2.) The respondent filed an O.A. challenging the Order dated: 29-9-1997 passed by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Bhadrachalam, Khammam Division removing the respondent from service as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. The respondent, who is an applicant before the tribunal was appointed as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (for brief "E.D.D.A."), Pinapaka in Bhadrachalam sub-area with effect from 15-9-1981. While he was working at Pinapaka, he applied for leave from 6-2-1996 to 25-2-1996 on the ground that his brother-in-law fell sick and he has to be treated at Hyderabad. Ultimately, his brother-in-law expired. It is also his case that on account of the tremendous stress, he also fell sick and could not resume duty. A charge memo dated: 30-12-1996 was served alleging that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty after 26-2-1996 after expiry of the sanctioned leave and finally an enquiry was held and Order of removal of service was passed on 29-9-1997. Aggrieved by the said Order, he filed an appeal under Extra Departmental Agents Conduct and Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called the "Conduct Rules") and the appellate authority also dismissed the appeal by an Order dated: 11-3-1998. He filed a revision to the next-higher authority and the same was also rejected on 8-12-1998, after availing the statutory remedies provided under EDA Conduct and Service Rules.

(3.) It is the case of the respondent- employee that after expiry of the sanctioned leave, he applied for further extension and that no reply was received. It is also his contention that enquiry was conducted in violation of the provisions of the Conduct Rules and thus the entire enquiry proceedings are vitiated. The Writ Petitioners who are the respondents before the tribunal filed counter therein stating that the employee remains absent for more than 180 days at a stretch and therefore, it attracted Rule 5 of Conduct Rules. It is also stated that the employee did not submit any leave application for extension of leave at all. It is further stated that a charge sheet was issued to him stating that he was unauthorisedly absent and therefore, an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer fixed the first sitting on 21 -2-1997 at Pinapaka Branch, but the memo sent to the employee was received with remarks "addressee absent for continuously 8 days". Thus, the employee did not attend. The 2nd sitting was held on 10-3-1997 and the memo sent for attending the enquiry was also returned with the same endorsement. Third sitting was fixed on 25-3-1997 where the prosecution witnesses were examined. After departmental witnesses were examined, the employee was directed to submit his defence statement. This letter was also returned back. Fourth sitting was held on 24-7-1997 in response to the intimation memo, the employee presented before the Enquiry Officer at the 4th sitting. The employee submitted written brief on 13-8-1997. The Enquiry Officer found the employee guilty of the charges. The employee also submitted his defence to the Enquiry Officer's report on 22-9-1997. Considering the nature of the misconduct and also the fact that the charges were proved against the employee he was removed from service on 29-9-1997. It was confirmed by the authorities. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enuiry was conducted in accordance with rules. The tribunal on challenge made by the employee held that employee was not in a position to report to duty after expiry of leave and he could not apply for extension of leave in advance. Therefore, the tribunal held that the award of imposition of extreme punishment was held to be illegal and consequently directed the reinstatement of the employee without any back wages. Against the said Order, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner.