1. The applicant, a Group-D employee of SRO, Railway Mail Service 'CT" Division, Kannur, was charge sheeted as per Annexure A-1 dated 02.12.2010 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) rules, 1965 for violation of Rule 3 (I) (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The charges against him were : (i) the speed post articles could not be despatched in time on 30.09.2010 due to negligent attitude of the applicant who opened the bags very slowly that too after repeated requests; and (ii) he was in the habit of raising his voice and shouting at other officials causing disturbance in the office. In his representation dated 18.12.2010, he stated that he had not shown any negligent attitude towards his duty and that he was not in the habit of raising his voice and shouting at officials and that he discharged his duties with utmost devotion on 30.09.2010 as usual. Holding that the applicant admitted his lapse, punishment of withholding of one increment for 2 years without cumulative effect was imposed on him vide Annexure A-2 order 27.01.2011 which was modified to withholding of increment for 15 months without cumulative effect vide appellate order dated 27.07.2011 at Annexure A-4. Aggrieved, he has filed this O.A. for the following reliefs:
(i) Call for the records relating to the case and quash Annexure A-1, Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-4 and restore his increment withheld with effect from 01.07.2011;
(ii)Any such remedy deemed fit and proper as this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to order;
(iii)Grant costs to the applicant.
2. The applicant contended that his duty was to assist the Head Sorting Assistant in opening of mail bags, segregation of the bags containing accountable articles and their conveyance to various sections. He had denied the allegations against him in toto. The charge sheet Annexure A-1 is silent at whom and when he had raised his voice and what he uttered. The charges levelled against him are not definite and they are vague, not free from ambiguity and are capable of misconstruction. No misconduct can be construed against the applicant from the allegations raised in the charge sheet. His failure to attain the highest standard of efficiency was contributed by his illness which was beyond his control. It has been held by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2152 of 1969, Union of India and Ors. vs. J. Ahmed, that "failure to attain the highest standard of efficiency in performance of duty permitting an inference of negligence would not constitute misconduct nor for the purpose of Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules as would indicate lack of devotion to duty". No specific misconduct is made out by the Disciplinary Authority in Annexure A-1. He had never abused any person working in Kannur RMS. Nothing has been produced by the respondents to prove the allegations made in the charge sheet. There is no allegation that the applicant is a habitual defaulter. Revision petition is not a mandatory remedy. The normal administrative channel exhausts with appeal.
3. On the contrary, the respondents submitted that the charges against the applicant were not vague or ambiguous. The allegations were raised by an official in a higher cadre working at the speed branch in the same unit and confirmed by the head of the unit. Misdemeanour of the applicant on 30.09.2010 is against the ethical expectations from a Government servant and hence constitute a misconduct. In his representation at Annexure R-1, the applicant had admitted his lapse which tantamounts to proving the charge levelled against him. It is explained in Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 that a Government servant who habitually fails to perform the tasks assigned to him within the time limit and with the quality of performance expected of him shall be deemed to be lacking in devotion to duty. He was aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority, he ought to have preferred a revision petition as specified under Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. In the present case all the statutory remedies are not exhausted.
4. The request made on behalf of the counsel for the applicant on the day of hearing for adjournment of the case was not granted. We have carefully perused the records of the case for deciding the case on merit under Rule 15
(1) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
5. In his representation dated 18,12,2010, though the applicant had stated that he attended the duties with utmost devotion and that he had not shown any negligent attitude, he however stated that he deeply and sincerely regretted whatever lapses and actions or mistakes on his part which had hurt the feelings of his fellow workers and superiors and that he would be more careful in future to avoid such mistakes. Thus, there is an implied admission on his part that there were some lapses on his part. It must be remembered that opening the mail bags very slowly that too after repeated requests is a clear misconduct. Because of this negligent attitude, bags could not be sent in time which affects the public. Raising voice when something is asked by the superior is also a misconduct . On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the lapses and misconduct attributed on the part of the employee deserves some punishment and the appellate authority has rightly interfered taking a lenient view by reducing the punishment. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal to interfere in the matter of disciplinary action is only when the action taken is vindictive and when the misconduct alleged is totally unsupported by the preponderance of probability. Further only a minor penalty has been imposed. In these circumstances, we do not think that this is a fit case for interference by this Tribunal. The Application lacks merit. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.