M. Rajagopal Vs. Union of India Rep. by the Director of Postal Services and Another

M. Rajagopal vs Union of India Rep. by the Director of Postal Services and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras Decided Jun 21, 2012

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/939459

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/939459
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Judge: The Honourable Mr. B. Venkateswara Rao, Judicial Member &Amp; the Honourable Mr. R. Satapathy, Adminisrative Member
Decided On: Jun 21, 2012
Case Number: Dy.3046 of 2012 & R.A.No.12 of 2012 in O.A.No.1131 of 2010
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M. Rajagopal

Advocate For the Applicant: M/s. R. Malaichamy, Advocate. For the Respondents: M/s. S. Seethalakshmi, Advocate.

Respondent

Union of India Rep. by the Director of Postal Services and Another

Excerpt

.....under rule 14. the ra and ma for condonation of delay for 34 days was placed before the judicial member shri k.b.s. rajan who has pronounced the order. the hon’ble judicial member k.b.s. rajan has observed as follows: “delay in filing the review application is condoned and thus m.a.no.736/2011 is allowed. as regards the review application, it appears that the intention of the tribunal has only to permit the authorities to initiate action under rule 16 and not 14. for, even the initial proceedings were initiated under rule 16 following the procedure as contained in rule 14 only and the order quashed on account of non-following of principles of natural justice. as such, notice may be issued to the other side.” 3. thereafter the matter has been placed before the this bench constituting of hon’ble judicial member shri. b. venkateswara rao and administrative member shri r. satapathy. since one of the members in this bench is also a party to the final order in oa 1131/2010 we have perused the records carefully and also heard the parties. after going through para 13 of the order in oa 1131/2010, we are of the opinion that it should read for liberty is given to the respondents to issue fresh charge sheet under rule 16 after giving opportunity to the applicant to defend his case. 4. accordingly we order that the charge sheet dated 30.12.2001 issued under rule 14 should be modified to that of rule 16 only and a fresh charge sheet should be issued to proceed with the enquiry. 5. ra is allowed in the above terms. 6. in view of the order passed in ra, the application (dy no.3046/2012) filed for stay of the further proceedings of enquiry initiated against the applicant vide memo.no.f1/vi/2/2008-2009 dated 30.12.2011 till the disposal of the ra is closed.

Full Judgment

R. SATAPATHY, ADMINISRATIVE MEMBER

1. Heard both the counsels. This Tribunal while passing order in OA 1131/2010 in its order dated 14.06.2011 has observed as follows:

“13. In view of the above, the O.A. is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.03.2010 and 18.08.2010 are hereby quashed/set aside. The respondents shall refund the amount if any recovered from the applicant. However liberty is given to the respondents to issue a fresh charge sheet under rule-14 to hold the enquiry giving full opportunity to the applicant to defend his case. If the liberty is availed of by the respondents, in that event they shall issue a charge sheet within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order and complete it within six months thereafter subject to the condition that the applicant shall cooperate in completion of proceedings. Delay if any, attributable to the applicant shall be discounted while calculating the period of six months.”

2. The learned counsel for the applicant in the OA Shri. R. Malaichamy has now filed a RA No.12/2012 stating that there is a typographical error as far as it relates to the issue of fresh charge sheet. According to the learned counsel for the applicant the liberty should have been given to the respondents to issue a fresh charge sheet under Rule 16 only and not under Rule 14. The RA and MA for condonation of delay for 34 days was placed before the Judicial Member Shri K.B.S. Rajan who has pronounced the order. The Hon’ble Judicial Member K.B.S. Rajan has observed as follows:

“Delay in filing the Review Application is condoned and thus M.A.No.736/2011 is allowed.

As regards the Review Application, it appears that the intention of the Tribunal has only to permit the authorities to initiate action under Rule 16 and not 14. For, even the initial proceedings were initiated under Rule 16 following the procedure as contained in Rule 14 only and the order quashed on account of non-following of principles of natural justice. As such, notice may be issued to the other side.”

3. Thereafter the matter has been placed before the this Bench constituting of Hon’ble Judicial Member Shri. B. Venkateswara Rao and Administrative Member Shri R. Satapathy. Since one of the members in this Bench is also a party to the final order in OA 1131/2010 we have perused the records carefully and also heard the parties. After going through Para 13 of the order in OA 1131/2010, we are of the opinion that it should read for liberty is given to the respondents to issue fresh charge sheet under Rule 16 after giving opportunity to the applicant to defend his case.

4. Accordingly we order that the charge sheet dated 30.12.2001 issued under Rule 14 should be modified to that of Rule 16 only and a fresh charge sheet should be issued to proceed with the enquiry.

5. RA is allowed in the above terms.

6. In view of the order passed in RA, the application (DY No.3046/2012) filed for stay of the further proceedings of enquiry initiated against the Applicant vide Memo.No.F1/VI/2/2008-2009 dated 30.12.2011 till the disposal of the RA is closed.

Same Court & Year Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras · 2012 Same Parties M. Rajagopal vs Union of India Rep. by the Director of Postal... Same Subject Education Same Judge The Honourable Mr. B. Venkateswara Rao, Judicial Member &Amp;...