In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has quashed an order of the Chief Postmaster General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow, which sought to enhance the punishment of a postal department employee after a lapse of almost five years. The court emphasized that the exercise of revisional powers under Rule 29(1)(vi) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, must be within a reasonable period.
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar, dismissed the writ petition filed by the Union of India and the Department of Posts, challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Lucknow Bench, in O.A. No. 541 of 2022 (Namo Narain Prasad vs. Union of India & Others).
Background of the Case:
The case revolves around Namo Narain Prasad, who was working as the Sub Postmaster at Sikandarpur Bus Stand from August 7, 2012, to June 26, 2014. He was accused of serious irregularities during his tenure, including misappropriation of government funds amounting to Rs. 3,88,060/- without proper authorization and failure to maintain proper records and documents.
On June 26, 2014, Prasad was placed under suspension, and a major penalty charge memorandum was issued against him on September 15, 2014. The inquiry officer appointed to investigate the matter found the charges against him to be substantiated. Following this, on October 31, 2017, the Disciplinary Authority ordered Prasad’s reversion from the post of Senior Postmaster to Dak Assistant for five years, along with other financial penalties.
Prasad appealed against the order on December 12, 2017, but the appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority on April 13, 2018. Subsequently, he filed a revision petition on May 23, 2018, which remained pending. On June 30, 2022, the Chief Postmaster General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow, issued a notice intending to enhance the punishment to compulsory retirement, which was eventually ordered on September 30, 2022.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Reasonable Time for Exercise of Revisional Powers:
The central issue was whether the Chief Postmaster General was justified in exercising revisional powers under Rule 29(1)(vi) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, after a delay of almost five years from the date of the original disciplinary order.
2. Allegations Not Part of Original Charges:
The court also examined whether the allegation of forged vouchers, which was not part of the original charge memorandum, could be used to enhance the punishment.
Court’s Observations:
Justice Vikas Budhwar, delivering the judgment, observed: “The exercise of powers by the revisional authority under Rule 29(1)(vi) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, should be within a reasonable period. The prolonged delay in issuing the notice for enhancement of punishment is unjustified and not sustainable in the eyes of law.”
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Vikrambhai Maganbhai Chaudhari (2011) 7 SCC 321, which held that the revisional powers must be exercised within a stipulated time frame. The judgment noted that the absence of a specific time limit in the notification under Rule 29(1)(vi) does not imply an indefinite period for exercising such powers.
The court further remarked, “The notification dated May 29, 2001, does not specify any time limit within which the power under Rule 29(1)(vi) is exercisable by the authority concerned. Therefore, such notification is not in conformity with Rule 29, and any exercise of power based on it, after an unreasonable delay, is liable to be quashed.”
Decision of the Court:
The High Court upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had quashed the order of the Chief Postmaster General to compulsorily retire Namo Narain Prasad. The court confirmed that the exercise of revisional powers after nearly five years was beyond the reasonable period and therefore invalid.
The court also found merit in the argument that the allegation of forged vouchers, not included in the original charge sheet, could not justify the enhancement of punishment. The disciplinary proceedings must adhere strictly to the charges framed at the outset, and any deviation from this principle is contrary to the rules of natural justice.
Case Details:
– Case Number: Writ – A No. 19109 of 2023
– Bench: Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar
– Petitioners (Union of India and Department of Posts): Represented by Advocate Krishna Agarwal.
– Respondent (Namo Narain Prasad): Represented by Advocate Tanuj Shahi.
