Judgment:
(a) to call for the records pertaining to the departmental examination for the post of postman held on 29.07.2001 in which the applicant was qualified on merit and was placed at Sl. No. 6 and declare that the inaction on the part of the respondents to issue orders of promotion to the applicant duly granting the consequential benefits, as arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted, misconceived and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (b) to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant to issue posting orders duly imparting training for the post of postman and allow the applicant to continue in the post of postman with all the consequential benefits.
The applicant was appointed as Branch Postmaster in April 1993.
Branch Post Master is one of the feeder categories for the written examination for the post of Postman after completion of 5 years of service. On 28.03.2001 a notification was issued calling for the candidates to appear in the examination to be held in 2001 for the post of Postman for the vacancies for the year 2002. By the date of the notification, the applicant became eligible to appear for the examination of the Postman. Accordingly, she appeared for the examination. On 10.10.2001 the results were announced as per Annexure IV. The applicant became successful in the examination and she is selected against OC quota though she belongs to SC community.
But posting orders have not been given on the ground that her promotion to the category of postman will be considered after finalisation of the disciplinary case against her. In fact, as is evident from the category, there was no disciplinary case pending against her. It appears that the department was contemplating to initiate disciplinary proceedings and kept her on put off duty vide order dated 02.12.2000. Subsequently, charges were framed on 16.07.2002 which was finalised on 08.11.2002. As seen from annexure V dated 08.11.2002, disciplinary proceedings were concluded on 08.11.2002 and the disciplinary authority found the charges proved and imposed the punishment of debarring from being considered for recruitment as Post Assistant for a period of 2 years after becoming eligible for recruitment for such post and that period of put off duty was treated as service for all purposes except pay and allowances. Subsequently, she was not immediately given promotion as Postman though she was selected and the disciplinary proceedings were finalised. However, on 9.1.2006, the applicant was promoted as Postman.
3. The grievance of the applicant is that as her juniors who are selected along with her have been given promotion on 20.11.2001, her promotion has to be given effect from 20.11.2001. But the respondents have not given promotion from 20.11.2001, but they have given only from 09.01.2006.
4. It is not disputed that the applicant was duly selected in the departmental examination for promotion to the cadre of Postman on 10.10.2001 along with 15 others. Of course, in the said results, against the name of the applicant, there is a foot note to the effect that 'Promotion of this candidate will be considered after finalization of the Disc. case against her. The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that there was no disciplinary case pending against her by that date. According to him, disciplinary case can be said to be commenced only on the date on which the charge memo is served and in this case, as is evident from the Annexure IV, charge memo was issued only on 16.07.2002. Therefore, the said foot note itself is not valid and that the applicant ought to have been given posting immediately as Postman. However, the said foot note has not been challenged.
Therefore, we do not want to go into that aspect. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that even if that foot note is given effect to, admittedly, disciplinary proceedings are over by 08.11.2002 and the applicant had debarred the applicant from appearing for the examination for the cadre of Postal Assistant and therefore, it may be deemed that the applicant's promotion as Postman has been cleared by the disciplinary authority. Rule 9 of the GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules prescribe as follows: The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Sevak by the Appointing Authority, namely: (ii) Debarring of a Sevak from appearing in the recruitment examination for the post of Postman and/or from being considered for recruitment as Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants for a period of one year or two years or for a period not exceeding three years; (iii) Debarring of a Sevak from being considered for recruitment to Group D for a period not exceeding three years; (iv) Recovery from Time Related Continuity Allowance of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of orders; (v) Removal from employment which shall not be a disqualification for future employment; (vi) Dismissal from employment which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment.
5. So far as this case is concerned, we are concerned with Clause (ii) of Rule 9 supra. As per Clause (ii), the punishment is of two types viz., (i) the disciplinary authority has got power to impose punishment of debarring of the candidate for appearing in the examination for the post of Postman, (ii) debarring from being considered for recruitment as Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant for a period of one or two years or a period of not exceeding three years.
6. Here in the instant case, the disciplinary authority did not choose to impose the punishment of the first type and instead imposed the punishment of the second type. The disciplinary authority in its final order dated 08.11.2002 made the following observations: 4. The nature of mistakes done by the charged official warrants serious action. However, considering the circumstances of the case and involvement of small amount and also keeping the future of the official career of the charged official, having passed the Postmen Examination and also her assurance of discharging of the duties carefully in future in view, I inclined to take a lenient view of the case by giving a chance to the official to rectify herself and to not to give scope for adverse comments in future.
7. From the reading of the said observation of the disciplinary authority, it is clear that the disciplinary authority did not debar her from being promoted as Postman and only postponed her eligibility to appear for the examination of Postal Assistant for a period of two years after she became eligible for appearing for the examination of Postal Assistant. Further, as the applicant was on put off duty, the disciplinary authority has treated that put off duty as service for all purposes except for pay and allowances. Therefore, there is absolutely no impediment for the respondents to give promotion with effect from the date on which the other candidates who have been selected along with her as Post Man vide order dated 10.10.2001. The respondents did not give retrospective effect to the promotion given to the applicant.
8. In our considered view, the applicant is entitled for promotion with effect from 20.11.2001 the date on which her immediate junior was promoted to the post of Postman. But she is not entitled for backwages, but the said period shall be treated as service as Postman. So far as relief (a) prayed for in the application is concerned, it is partly granted declaring that the applicant shall be treated to have been promoted with effect from 20.11.2001 for the purpose of seniority, but the relief of consequential benefits have been rejected as she did not actually work as Postman and she worked as Branch Postmaster for which she has already been paid, and so she is not entitled for any arrears.
So far as the relief (b) is concerned, as the applicant has already been promoted as Postman, no further directions need be given, but the only direction that can be given is to give effect to the promotion with effect from 21.10.2001. OA is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.