B. Rajasekaran Vs. Uoi and Others

B. Venkateswara Rao, Judicial Member

1. The applicant in this OA has come before the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:-

1.) To call for the records of the 3^rd respondent pertaining to his order which is made in Memo No:B/338 dated 22/04/2009. which has been confirmed by the 2^nd respondent vide his Memo No.STC/3-20/09 dated 3.14.10.2009 and by the 1^st respondent by an order which is made in Memo No.VIG/11-7/10 dated 31/8/2010 and set aside the same: consequent to

2.) direct the Respondents to refund the amount deducted from the pay and allowance of the applicant byway of reduction by one stage from Rs.12,720/- to Rs.12,220/- in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay Rs.4200 for a period of 2 years by an order of the 3^rd respondent dated 22/04/2009; and

3.) To pass such further or other orders as the Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant was initially appointed as Postal Assistant in the year 1980 at Thiruthuraipoondi Post Office and subsequently he was granted TBOP and BCR benefits and at present he is working as Postal Assistant at Pattukottai Head Post Office. The applicant has earlier been transferred from Vadaseri SO to Papanad SO vice Smt.R.Ushakumari on rotational basis vide Memo dated 11/04/2007 (Annexure A-1) and 16/04/2008(Annexure A-2) from Papanad SO to Pattukottai HO. While the applicant was working at Pattukottai HO, he was issued with a Memo No.B/338 dated 04/03/2009 (Annexure A-3 at page No.11 of the OA), informing him the proposal to take action against him under Rule 16 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, along with statement of the imputations of misconduct. The applicant submitted his explanation vide representation dated 25/03/2009 (Annexure A-4) requesting the authorities to exonearate him from the charges. However, by order in memo No.B/338 dated 22/04/2009(Annexure a-5) the third respondent passed order reducing the pay of the applicant by one stage from Rs.12720 to Rs.12220 in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade pay Rs.4200/- for a period of two years with immediate effect with further direction that he will earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of this period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. Against the above reduction of increment, the applicant preferred an appeal dated 22/06/2009(annexure a-6) before the 2nd respondent but the same was rejected by order dated 3/14.10.2009(Annexure A-7) confirming the punishment imposed on him. The applicant submitted a revision petition before the revisional authority (1^st respondent) on 25/11/2009 (Annexure A-8) and by order in Memo NO.VIG/11-7/10 dated 31/08/2010 (Annexure A-9) the revisionery authority confirmed the orders of the appellate authority and rejected the review petition which is challenged in this OA.

3. The applicant attacks the impugned penalty order of reduction of pay and allowances on the ground that the rotational transfer order of the year 2008 was wantonly ordered with omissions and error with regard to who will move first, without following the provisions under Rule 42 of in Pand T Manual and that the applicant is punished with ill-motive. The applicant went to join duty in the Head Office on 01/05/2008 as per the oral order to oblige the transfer order of the third respondent. In order to protect the higher authority the 1^st and 2^nd respondents confirmed the order of 3rd respondent which is unjustifiable. The order dated 16/04/2008 failed to mention as to who will move first but only oral instruction was issued to join duty which fact has been ignored by the respondents. Thus the action of the respondents amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

4. The respondents have filed reply stating that while calling for willingness for rotation on transfer for the year 2008, the applicant submitted his request on 15/12/2007 opting to work at pattukottai Head PO without TA/transit period. His request was considered and he was posted as Postal Assistant at Pattukottai Head Post office. No relief movement order has been specified in the said memo for the implementation of the orders in view of the fact of shortage of staff and separate orders are normally issued for relief movement later. The applicant without getting proper relieving order from Divisional Head, got himself relieved from Papanad Sub Post office by handing over charge to the Postal Assistant one Shri N. Pazhani on 01/05/2008 and reported at Pattukottai Head PO at 09.45 hrs on 01/05/2008. On direction from the Postmaster, Pattukottai Head PO to report for duty after getting proper relief from papanad SO, the applicant went to Papanad SO and worked there. On 01/05/2008 an enquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Posts, Orattanad Sub Division wherein the applicant stated that he got himself relieved by handing over charge to Shri N Pazhani to join at Pattukottai Head PO as per rotational transfer orders. Accordingly he failed to get proper relief orders to join at Pattukottai Head Post Office on Rotational Transfer on 01/05/2008. When no specific movement orders was not mentioned in the rotational transfer order, the applicant ought to have obtained relief orders from the competent authority and thus violated the provisions of Rule 42 of Postal and Telegraph Manual Volume IV.

5. The respondents further state that there is no question of issuing oral orders to all transferee officials to complete the rotational transfer. Since there was no specific target date about the relief of the applicant, his imagination of order of move on 1^st May is unsustainable. Pattukottai Head PO was any how manageable in present of adequate shortage of staff. The move of the applicant from Papanad Sub Post Office would have caused shortage in the SO which is required to be managed by two staff. Thus the act of the applicant in getting relieved on his own by handing over charge of the office of the Sub Postmaster, Papanad Sub Post office and reporting at Pattukottai Head Post Office amounts to gross indiscipline and his mis-behaviour deserves severe punishment and the appellate and revisionary authority have passed the reasonable and speaking order. They prayed for dismissal of the OA.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant Mr.R.malaichamy and Shri S.Muthusamy, learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Counsel for the applicant reiterated that the applicant joined duty in the transferred place to oblige the oral order of the higher authority as the respondents failed to mention in the transfer order as to who will move first as required Rule 42 of P and T manual and thus the impugned rejection order dated 31/08/2010 deserves be quashed and set aside. Counsel for the respondents contended that the applicant instead of obtaining relief Order from the competent authority got himself relieved and thus violated Rule 42 of in P and T manual, and thus the impugned order is justified.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and having persued the materials on record including the rejoinder and additional rejoinder as well as the relevant provision of Rule 42 of in P and T manual, and the citations relied upon by the respective counsel, the point that arises for our consideration is whether the respondents are justified in issuing the impugned order dated 31/08/2010.

9. When both the parties are taking shelter under Rule 42 of P and T Manual, it is necessary to extract the same which reads as under:

The orders of transfer must in each case specify in detail how the transfer is to be carried out i.e., to or from whom and under what circumstances each official concerned will make or take over charge, and whether charge is to be relinquished or assumed on a specified date or as each official is relieved. In special cases, the Head of a Circle may authorize two officials to exchange charges by telegraph. As a general rule, when two officers are to exchange charges, the officer to be first relieved should be ordered to make over charge to one of the next senior officer, who will hold charge temporarily until relieved”.

As per the above provision, specific movement order is to be mentioned in the rotational transfer orders issued by the competent authority for implementation purpose. However, a perusal of the transfer order dated 16/04/2008 at Annexure A-2 shows that the applicant was transferred from Papanad So to be PA, Pattukottai HO at request and there is no mention as to how the transfer is to be carried out i.e,. date of relief, to or from whom and under what circumstances each official concerned will make or take over charge, and whether charge is to be relinquished or assumed on a specified date or as each official is relieved. Even though the applicant’s request was considered and he was transferred as per or Order dated 16/04/2008, there is no specified date of assuming charge mentioned therein as also how the transfer is to be carried out. A perusal of the rotational transfer order passed on earlier occasion dated 11/04/2007 (Annexure A-1) wherein the applicant was transferred from Vadaseri SO to Papanad SO vice Smt.Ushakumari, there is no mention about the date of relief which is mandatory as per Rule 42 of P and T Manual. When the respondents were not able to specify relief movement order for implementation of the transfer due to shortage of staff, they ought to have mentioned the same in the said order.

10. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm opinion, that the respondents have not followed the provision under Rule 42 of P and T Manual while issuing the transfer rotational transfer order. Accordingly the respondents are not justified in issuing the Memo dated 22/04/2009 followed by memo dated 3/14.10.2009. Accordingly the impugned rejection order dated 31/08/2010 (Annexure A-9) is hereby set aside and quashed and consequently the OA is allowed. Further, the respondents are directed to refund the amount deducted from the pay and allowances of the applicant by way reduction by one stage from Rs12,720/- to Rs.12220/- in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay Rs4200 for a period of 2 years, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs.