UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus P.K. KUTTAPPAN

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 433 · Decided: 28-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

... 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
. 
. -\ 
v. 
P.K. KUTTAPPAN 
FEBRUARY 28, 2007 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND ALT AMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
. ! 
Back wages-Postal Department-EDDA-Dismissed on charges of non-
delivery of letters to addressees-Reinstatement by Tribunal with 50% back c 
wages-Held, the charges being very serious in nature impugned orders 
modified to the effect that order of reinstatement only shall be given effect 
to and the part of the order regarding payment of 50% back wages is set 
aside. 
Respondent, an EDDA in the Postal Department, was dismissed from D 
service ou several charges of not delivering Registered Letters and other 
letters and information to the addressees. However, the Tribunal directed his 
Ji. 
reinstatement with 50% back wages. Since Department's writ petition was 
dismissed by the High Court, it filed the present appeal. 
, 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: The charges are very serious in nature. Therefore the order 
passed by the Tribunal and as affirmed by the High Court is modified and it 
is ordered that only order of reinstatement will be given effect to and the 
direction in regard to payment of 50% back wages is set aside. Keeping in 
view the fact that no interim order was granted in favour of the appellant-
F 
Union of India, and it ought to have given effect to the order dated 25.1.2005 
~ ... 
passed by the High Court, the respondent shall be entitled for reinstatement 
from 25.01.2005 with salary and other perks from that date. I Paras 6 and 8) 
(435-D-GJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1122 of2007. 
G 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 25.1.2005 of the High Court 
of Kerala at Emakulam in O.P. No. 19374 of 2002 (S). 
T.S. Doabia, Kiran Bhardwaj and V.K. Venna for the Appellants. 
433 
H 
434 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
G. Prakash for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. I. Delay condoned. 
B 
2. Leave granted. 
3. 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. 
C 
4. 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. 
5. Our attention was drawn to the charges framed against the respondent 
D herein. The charges reads thus :-" 
E 
F 
G 
Article I 
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.l.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 
H 
deliver RL 979 of Poovathussery addressed Omana Thomas Clo 
-
I , 
' ,, 
U.0.1. v. P.K. KUTTAPPAN [LAKSHMANAN. J.] 
435 
l.M.Thomas, Irimpan, Poovathussery, Parakkadavu entrusted to him A 
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 
B 
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 C 
failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty violating the provisions 
of Rule 17 of the P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964." 
6. In our opinion, the charges are very serious in nature. However, the 
Tribunal and the High court taking a lenient view of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.