CIRCLES => TAMIL NADU => Topic started by: rajasekaran on December 25, 2016, 10:47:11 pm

Post by: rajasekaran on December 25, 2016, 10:47:11 pm


W.P.NO.                  OF   2016
B. Rajesekaran,
S/o A.V.Balasubramanian
No. 19 Rajampalayam street,
Mannargudi -614001,
Tiruvarur District.                                                          …Petitioner.

1. The Registrar,
    Central Administrative Tribunal,
    Madras Bench,
    Chennai  -104,

2.The Union of India,
   Rep by it’s,
   The Chief  Post Master General,
   Tamil Nadu Circle,
   Anna Salai ,
   Chennai – 600 002.

3. The Union of India,
    Rep by it’s ,
   The Post Master General,
   Central Region  (TN),
   Department of Post,
   Tiruchirapalli – 620 001.

4. The Union of India,
    Rep by it’s ,
    The Director , Postal Training Center,
    Madurai- 625 022.

5. The Union of India,
   Rep by it’s ,
   The Superintendent   of  Post Offices,
   Pattukottai Division,
   Pattukottai -614601                             

                     AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER

           I, B. Rajesekaran, S/o. A.V.Balasubramanian , Hindu, aged about 60 years,and residing at No.19,Rajampalayam street, Mannargudi, Tiruvarur District, now come down to Chennai and do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely states as follows:

1.   I am the petitioner herein and as such I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case hereunder.

2.   I most respectfully submit that the above writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 1st respondent in O.A. No.347 of 2014 dated 22.07.16  and consequently to direct the respondents to drop the entire disciplinary proceedings on the basis of my representation dated 07.10.13.

3.   I state that I was employed as postal assistant in the year 1980 in the postal department and I discharged my duty to the utmost satisfaction of my superiors till 31.03.2016 on which date I was superannuated from my service under the respondents postal department.

4.   I state that I was subsequently promoted as Officiating Post Master at Pattukottai Head Office, while that being so I was sent for an unimportant Mid-Career Development Programme (Refreshing Training) from 10.09.12 to 22.09.12 in the office of the 4th respondent. I state that during the course of training on 15.09.12 I was removed from the training class by the 4th respondent on the unlawful allegation that I could not do the ‘Shramdan ’ an unofficial physical labour at an unofficial time of 5.45 a.m onwards as compelled unlawfully by the 4th respondent due to illness.None has the authority to force such labour according to Conduct Rules 3( C) GID 6.Shramdan is only  a voluntary labour and has nothing to do with official duties according to rules. During all of my previous trainings all authorities followed this rule and did not force me to do it.

5.   I state that in the name of ‘Shramdan ’ we were forced to do sweeping work or peon’s work for long hours and I was unable to perform the said labour due to my old age of 56 years at that point of time and health problems for which I had already undergone surgery in Spinal Cord in the year 2002 and was taking physiotherapy (for elbow pain)etc. I further state that it is not mandatory for the trainee to perform the said voluntary labour and it is not at all a duty or rule. In fact ‘Shramdan ’ is organized only by the State Government, and the Central Government Servants can only be permitted to participate in the said voluntary service with the object to enabling the participants to devote some time and labour. This labour was illegally misnamed as conduct by the 4th respondent.

6.   I state that the 4th respondent is in the habit of forcing several trainees to do ‘Shramdan ’ irrespective of their health conditions and their willingness. In fact in an earlier occasion, due to the egoistic attitude of the 4th respondent, one Jayakumar committed suicide during his training period on 17.9.12 under the very same 4th respondent by name Ms.T.Nirmala Devi  for which all the unions conducted dharna and announced strikes demanding justice to Jayakumar and represented that action should be initiated as against the 4th respondent

7.   In addition, the fourth respondent induced provokingly with an unlawful letter to 2nd respondent to take action against me ridiculing my giddiness .I state that to my shock and surprise I was placed under suspension by the 5th respondent misusing Sub – Rule (1) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 violating Rule 17 of Postal Manual Volume III vide order dated 04.01.2013 and thereafter charge sheet to impose Major Punishment under Rule 14 dated 21.02.13 was issued to me by the 5th respondent under the unground and illegal orders from the 3rd respondent violating Rule 45 of Postal Manual Volume III and Annexure in Rule 14 of CCS CCA Rules 1965 and against Conduct Rule 3(C ) GID 13.I filed O.A 92/2013 which ordered  the 3RD respondent on 17.1.13 to follow rules and consider  my representation dated 10.01.13 lawfully and logically. Subsequently the order of suspension was revoked and I was reinstated as officiating Assistant Postmaster instead of Officiating Postmaster. But charge sheet was issued against rules and the orders of the 1st respondent and no reply was sent to my representation dated 10.01.13. in contempt of court. The orders of the 1st respondent were concealed in the unlawful charge sheet to hide the contempt.

8.   I state that as against the said charge sheet and appointment of the Enquiry Officer, I had filed O.A.No.533 of 2013 before the 1st respondent, wherein the 1st respondent by an order dated 24.09.13 directed me to submit a comprehensive representation to the 2nd respondent and directed the 2nd respondent to consider and pass a speaking order according to rules and law and further directed till such time the enquiry proceedings should be kept in abeyance. The 3rd respondent also escaped by claiming wrongly inapplicable Rule 13 of CCS CCA Rules.

9.   I state that as per the direction of the 1st respondent I  submitted my representation dated 07.10.13 to the 2nd respondent. However the 2nd respondent by an order dated 10.01.14 wantonly neglected all of my points such as violations by forcing shramdan, unlawful discharge with motive, unlawful and malicious reporting with igniting and insulting words by 4th respondent with unwarranted linking of Gandhiji with it and the violations by 3rd respondent against Rule 17 and 45 of Postal Manual Volume III and against Conduct Rules 3( C) GID 6, 24 and 13 suppression of inflammatory portion of Mrs. Nirmala Devi’s letter dated 15.9.12  with court orders dated 17.1.13 in charge sheet, disobedience to that order by respondents etc. It rejected my representation unlawfully as against which I had once again approached the 1st respondent in O.A.No.347 of 2014. The 2nd respondent twisted the words by forgery in my representation dated 7.10.13 to justify its abetting and negligence. The words “Charge is not proved and baseless’ were interpolated by it in page4 in the belated order VIG/28-53/13 dated 10.1.14 as if I had written. Actually I wrote ‘”Charge sheet on the basis of shramdan and conducting enquiry are baseless and against rules and against the 1st respondent orders. The 1st respondent by an impugned order dated 22.07.16 was pleased to permit the respondents 2 to 5 to conduct the enquiry against the victim and conclude the entire disciplinary proceedings and pass final orders, within a period of six months, from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The offenders of law and rules are entrusted to enquire the innocent and I was prevented from getting justice.

10.   I state that for no fault on mine I was subjected to unnecessary and unlawful departmental proceeding, harassment agony and humiliation for all these years. I worked under juniors for about 3 years after a distant transfer to other H.O.I put forth the above facts with copies of rulings before the 1st respondent on 22.7.16 during final enquiry but they were neglected grievously. I state that the order of the 1st respondent is without application of judicial mind on the ground that the enquiry officer and the presenting officer appointed by the 5th respondent were not in accordance with orders of the 1st respondent in O.A 92/2013 and O.A.533/2013 and not in accordance with law and further the charge sheet is illegal in the eye of law. Actually respondents acted in contempt of court in the cases. If they had obeyed rules or the orders the next O.A 347 of 2014  need not have been filed.

11.   I state to my notice dated 14.9.16 detailing the illegalities and invalidity of charge sheet to the respondents, the 3rd respondent replied that court had directed to conduct enquiry.   

12.   Fundamental Rights against exploitation of forced labour right to life with dignity are violated.       

13.   I state that I have no other alternative, effective or speedy remedy open to us except to approach this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus. I state that I have not filed any other suit for the similar relief and no case or proceedings of similar nature are pending before any other court or forum.


a.   The 1st respondent had grievously erred in law in allowing the offender respondents in O.A. to conduct the enquiry without noticing the contempt of court by respondents in OA 92/2013 and 533/2013 and violations of fundamental right in article 23  which are punishable.

b.   In this regard the 1st respondent failed to advert to the factual aspect that the innocent petitioner has not committed any misbehavior and misconduct as alleged by the 4th respondent and that all the violations of  concerned rules and laws were done blatantly by the respondents but a charge sheet was issued for major punishment against victim to cover up their illegalities.

c.   The 1st respondent ought to have noted that the official respondents had failed to explain as to how the petitioner can be subjected to the charge as framed for non performing of  peon’s work under ‘Shramdan ’despite his medical certificates.

d.   The 1st respondent fails to consider the fact that I was superannuated as on date of the order passed in O.A, hence the  continuance of disciplinary proceeding is motivated to torture illegally even after retirement.

e.   The 1st respondent Tribunal had grievously erred in holding that the enquiry to be conducted by the official respondents without looking into the fact that the petitioner was innocent and  retired  and actually respondents have made the irregularities, violations and wanton breach of rules withholding his major retirement dues like gratuity commutation etc and granting provisional pension .

f.   The 1st respondent Tribunal has grievously erred without considering the fact that the petitioner cannot and need not perform the said voluntary labour of sweeping as per rules  and due to his old age of 56 years and health problem for which the petitioner had already undergone a major surgery in Spinal Cord in the year 2002.

g.   The 1st respondent Tribunal has grievously erred without noting the fact that forced labour is against Fundamental Right in article 23 and demanding  explanation to a malicious and unlawful letter dt 15.9.12 of the 4th respondent is also unlawful.

h.   The 1st respondent Tribunal has further failed to note that the ‘Shramdan’ is organized only by the State Government, and the Central Government Servants can only be permitted to participate in the said duties with the object to enabling the participants to devote some time and labour and dignity of individual is envisaged in the Preamble.While other Directors followed this ,only Mrs. Nirmala Devi violated this as a discrimination and ordered illegally to do peon’s works.

i.   The 1st respondent Tribunal further failed to consider that the 4th respondent has no authority to order to force shramdan and the petitioner need not perform the peon’s works under the guise of ‘Shramdan ’ for long hours from 5.45 a.m. for which the 4th respondent had developed animosity and ill-feeling and prejudice as against the petitioner without any valid reason violating above rules as a result the disciplinary proceedings were initiated which is totally illegal in the eye of law.

j.   I most respectfully submit that order of the 1st respondent Tribunal is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. I state that the hon’ble Tribunal has completely misconstrued the facts of the case. This is also against SC judgement in the state of Punjab vs V.K.Khanna 2000 AIR SCW4472 Which says courts have to interfere early at the issue of charge sheets if an element of  malafide or motive is involved to avoid harassment, humiliation to the public servant as inquiry would be a mere farcical show and the conclusions are well known”

14.   I most respectfully submit the Inquiry Office and the Presenting Officer appointed in letter dt 25.03.13  by the 5th respondent under the secret and unlawful orders from 3rd respondent dated 4.1.13 has no legal authority or jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry as respondents had actually committed all violations and not me. The hono’ble Central Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 22.07.16 in O.A.No.347 of 2014 has permitted  the official and offending respondents in the O.A. to conduct the inquiry.The respondents have taken it as direction against me and posted inquiry on 21.10.16

15.   I state that the fictitious  malafide allegation as against me is also not genuine in nature. In the above circumstances, the order of the 1st respondent Tribunal is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. I state that the 1st respondent Tribunal has completely misconstrued the facts of the case neglecting  also principles of Natural justice against section 22 of Administrative Tribunal’s Act 1985.

16.   I state that now on the basis of the order of the 1st respondent the enquiry has been fixed on 21.10.16. In the above circumstances it is just and necessary that the order of the 1st respondent is to be stayed on the other hand I would be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

It is therefore prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to stay the impugned order of the 1st respondent in O.A.No.310/00347/2014 dated 22.07.16 pending disposal of the above writ petition and thereby render justice.

 It is therefore prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in O.A.No.310/00347/2014 dated 22.07.16 and quash the same and to consequently direct the respondent 2 to 5 to drop the disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner and pay the retirement benefits on the basis of petitioner’s representation dated 07.10.13 and pass such further or other orders and thereby render justice.

   Solemnly affirm and affixed his                                 Before me
   signature in my presence at Chennai               
   this the        day of October 2016                      Advocate : Chennai