Union Of India & Ors vs P.K. Kuttappan
- SCC(2007) 10 SCC 721
- Neutral2007 INSC 233
- SCR[2007] 3 SCR 433
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an employee has been found guilty of serious charges involving failure to maintain absolute devotion to duty — such as non-delivery of postal articles and making false remarks on official records — reinstatement in service may be ordered on grounds of leniency, but the sanction of back wages (whether full or partial) may be withheld as a measure of disciplinary consequence, leaving only the order of reinstatement to stand. Where a Special Leave Petition has been filed against a High Court judgment but this Court grants only notice on the petition without granting any interim stay of the High Court's order, the employee remains entitled to the benefit of the High Court's judgment from its date of pronouncement, including salary and other perks, notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal before this Court.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Heard Mr.T.S.Doabia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr.G.Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
The above appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt.25.01.2005 passed by the High Court of Kerala in O.P.No.19374 of 2002 affirming the order passed by the Tribunal ordering reinstatement with 50% of the back allowances. Our attention was drawn to the charges framed against the respondent herein. The charges reads thus :-
" Article 1 That Sri P.K.Kuttappan while working as EDDA Parakkadavu failed either to deliver or return to the Branch Postmaster 38 ordinary postal Articles entrusted to him for delivery on 16.3.1996, 18.3.1996 and 19.3.1996 and thereby failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty violating the provisions of Rule 17 of the P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964.
Article 2
That Sri P.K.Kuttappan while working as EDDA Parakkadavu did not deliver RL 1075 of Bijapur addressed to Sri.I.M.Thomas, Irimpan house, Poovathussery, Parakkadavu entrusted to him for delivery on 4.3.96 and subsequent days but returned the article undelivered finally with false remarks on 19.3.96 and there by failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty violating the provisions of Rule 17 of the P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964.
Article 3
That Sri P.K.Kuttappan while working as EDDA Parakkadavu did not deliver RL 979 of Poovathussery addressed Omana Thomas C/o I.M.Thomas, Irimpan, Poovathussery, Parakkadavu entrusted to him on 9.3.96 and subsequent days but returned it undelivered with final false remark on 19.3.96 and there by failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty violating the provisions of Rule 17 of the P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964.
Article 4
That Sri P.K.Kuttappan while working as EDDA Parakkadavu did not deliver or serve intimation on VP B-45241 of Bombay GPO addressed to Mrs. Omana Thomas, Poovathussery, Parakkadavu which was entrusted to him on 12.3.1996 and subsequent days but returned with false remarks "Home continuously locked" finally on 18.3.96 and thus failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty violating the provisions of Rule 17 of the P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964."
In our opinion, the charges are very serious in nature. However, the Tribunal and the High court taking a lenient view of the matter ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages. In our opinion, the respondent, if at all, should have been reinstated in service only without 50% back wages and, therefore, the said part of the order passed by the Tribunal and as affirmed by the High Court requires modification. We, therefore, modify the order passed by the Tribunal and as affirmed by the High Court and order only reinstatement and delete the direction in regard to payment of 50% back wages. The respondent shall be reinstated within one week from today. It is also pertinent to notice that the Special Leave Petition was filed on 23.06.2005. This Court on 29.07.2005 has ordered only notice on the application for condonation of delay, Special Leave Petition and also on the prayer for interim relief. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to several dates and no interim order was granted in favour of the appellant-Union of India. Under such circumstances, the Union of India ought to have given effect to the order passed by the High Court dt.25.01.2005. Since there is no stay, the respondent, in our opinion, shall be entitled for reinstatement from 25.01.2005 and he is also entitled for salary and other perks from that date. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free