Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To
The Postmaster General,
Central Region, Kerala Circle,
Kochi-682106.
Sir,
I am directed to forward herewith the subject-cited petition in original for detailed
examination.
2. It is requested kindly to send brief history of the case, para wise comments on the
petition and return the original petition along with following documents:
Yours faithfully,
(Anand Prakash)
Assistant Director General (GDS)
Encl: as stated
Department of Posts
GDS Section
No. 21-2/2006-GDS
PUC 1-8/C
PUC is subject cited review petition received in this office from the President’s
Secretariat. The case has been taken up by Shri P.C. Thomas, Hon’ble Member of
Parliament vide his letter dated 24.11.2005 addressed to the Hon’ble President. We may
perhaps call for brief history of the case, parawise comments on the petition alongwith
Xerox copies of relevant documents from PMG Kochi. DFA please.
(Somnath Chuchra)
A.D.(Estt.)
18.01.2006
ADG (GDS)
Yours faithfully,
(Anand Prakash)
Assistant Director General (GDS)
Encl: as stated
SDI (P) Muvattupuzha Sub Division visited Meenkunnam BO at 1000 hrs on 14.5.81 for
inspection. Working hours of the BO were from 1000 to 1400 hrs. Shri A.P. Augustine,
BPM Meenkunnam was absent and a lady who introduced herself as the wife of the BPM
was found in the BPM’s chair. No leave was applied for by the BPM for 14.5.81 and as
such he remained unauthorisedly absent. On sending message, Shri Augustine reported at
the BO at 1020 hrs. On verification of cash and stamps balance by the Sub Divisional
Inspector, there was shortage of Rs.11.01. The BPM admitted the shortage, but he could
not give satisfactory explanation for the shortage of cash, for his late attendance and for
permitting his wife to work as BPM unauthorizedly. BPM refused to give statement and
also to produce office records for inspection and behaved arrogantly towards the SDI (P).
The petitioner was found unauthorizedly absent from duty engaging substitutes on many
previous occasions also and he used threatening language to the Sub Postmaster of
Accounts Office through BO daily accounts.
As there was chance of the said BPM to temper/destroy official records BPM was put off
duty from 20.5.81. He was charge sheeted under Rule 8 of P&T ED Agents (Conduct &
Service) Rules 1964. After culmination of inquiry he was dismissed from service w.e.f.
22.11.82 by SSPOs, Aluva Division. His appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority.
Thereafter the applicant filed OA 132/87 against his dismissal and the OA was allowed
with directions to the disciplinary authority to re-consider the case. The applicant was
removed from service w.e.f. 28.2.90 after completion of de novo inquiry. The appeal and
revision petition against the order of removal from service was rejected by the appellant
authority and PMG, Kochi respectively. Thereupon, the applicant approached the
Hon’ble CAT Ernakulam Bench through OA 411/99 stating that his review petition dated
10.8.94 addressed to the Secretary to Government India, Ministry of Communications,
New Delhi was still pending. The Hon’ble CAT disposed of the OA on 9.4.99 with
direction to the respondent (Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of
Communication) to dispose of the review petition through a speaking order within one
month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Review petition was rejected by
the competent authority vide order No. 21-10/99-ED&TRG., dated 1.9.99.