The Postmaster General Vs. P.V. Mohandas, S/O. P.V. Vava, Retired Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Ernakulam and Others

The Postmaster General vs P.V. Mohandas, S/O. P.V. Vava, Retired Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Ernakulam and Other

Type Court Judgment Court Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam Decided Nov 04, 2009

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/937604

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/937604
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Judge: Honourable Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member &Amp; Honourable Mr. K.George Joseph, Administrative Member
Decided On: Nov 04, 2009
Case Number: Review Application No. 47 of 2009 in Original Application No. 789 OF 2003
Subject: Miscellaneous

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Miscellaneous

Key legal issue: Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Postmaster General

Advocate For the Appearing Parties: Mr. S. Abhilash, Advocate.

Respondent

P.V. Mohandas, S/O. P.V. Vava, Retired Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Ernakulam and Other

Excerpt

hon'ble dr. k b s rajan, judicial member this review application has been filed by the respondent no. 4 in the oa seeking review of the order at annexure ra-1 dated 28.07.2009 in the light of annexure ra-2 amendment to the schedule of appointing/disciplinary/appellate authorities in respect of group 'b' and group 'c' employees of the department of posts. by annexure ra2, there has been change in the appointing authorities in dealing with disciplinary proceedings. earlier, in so far as the applicant is concerned, it is the postmaster general who was the appellate authority and the chief postmaster general was the reviewing authority. with the ra-2 amendment, the appellate authority is member postal services board and the disciplinary authority is head of circle. 2. the amendment to the schedule of appointing/disciplinary/ appellate authorities in respect of groups 'b' and 'c' employees was only issued on 12.12.2006, whereas in the instant case, the appellate order came to be passed in 2001. when a direction is issued for review of appellate order, the clock is set back and it is the very same authority (in the instant case, the postmaster general) who shall act as the appellate authority. as such, there is no necessity to pass any order in the light of annexure ra-2 amendment. the postmaster general who was arrayed as respondent no. 4 in the o.a. is competent to take necessary action in accordance with the directions given in the order of this tribunal dated 28.02.2009. 3. with the above observations, the review application is disposed of.

Full Judgment

HON'BLE DR. K B S RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This Review Application has been filed by the respondent No. 4 in the OA seeking review of the order at Annexure RA-1 dated 28.07.2009 in the light of Annexure RA-2 amendment to the Schedule of Appointing/Disciplinary/Appellate Authorities in respect of Group 'B' and Group 'C' employees of the Department of Posts. By Annexure RA2, there has been change in the appointing authorities in dealing with disciplinary proceedings. Earlier, in so far as the applicant is concerned, it is the Postmaster General who was the Appellate Authority and the Chief Postmaster General was the Reviewing Authority. With the RA-2 amendment, the Appellate Authority is Member Postal Services Board and the Disciplinary Authority is Head of Circle.

2. The amendment to the Schedule of Appointing/Disciplinary/ Appellate Authorities in respect of Groups 'B' and 'C' employees was only issued on 12.12.2006, whereas in the instant case, the appellate order came to be passed in 2001. When a direction is issued for review of appellate order, the clock is set back and it is the very same authority (in the instant case, the Postmaster General) who shall act as the Appellate Authority. As such, there is no necessity to pass any order in the light of Annexure RA-2 amendment. The Postmaster General who was arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the O.A. is competent to take necessary action in accordance with the directions given in the order of this Tribunal dated 28.02.2009.

3. With the above observations, the Review Application is disposed of.

Same Court & Year Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam · 2009 Same Parties The Postmaster General vs P.V. Mohandas, S/O. P.V. Vava, Reti... Same Subject Miscellaneous Same Judge Honourable Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member &Amp; Honourable...