http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1122 of 2007

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS

RESPONDENT: P.K. KUTTAPPAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/02/2007

BENCH: Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN & ALTAMAS KABIR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP(C) No.16478 of 2005)

Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN, J.  

       Delay condoned.

       Leave granted.         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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.