Union of India and Ors. v. P. K. Kuttappan

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan
Altamas Kabir
Judgment Date: 2007-02-28
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is disposed of. The Tribunal's and High Court's direction to grant 50% back wages is set aside; the respondent is reinstated in service, but without back wages, with salary and perks from 25 January 2005; the order is to be implemented, and no interim relief was granted; no costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Union of India and Ors.

Respondents

P. K. Kuttappan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T. S. Doabia
• Kiran Bhardwaj
• V. K. Venna

Counsels for Respondents

• G. Prakash

Case Synopsis & Summary

Union of India and Ors. v. P.K. Kuttappan concerns the dismissal of P.K. Kuttappan, an EDDA in the Postal Department, for several acts of nondelivery and misdelivery of letters and related duties, under Rule 17 of the P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. The Administrative Tribunal directed reinstatement with 50% back wages, which the Kerala High Court affirmed. The Union of India challenged in the Supreme Court, contending that the charges were very serious and that the lenient remedy of reinstatement with back wages undermined discipline. The Supreme Court noted the gravity of the misconduct but concluded that reinstatement, rather than dismissal, was the appropriate remedy, while striking down the back-wages provision as unwarranted. It held that the respondent should be reinstated and paid salary and perks from 25 January 2005, on the basis that there was no interim stay and the High Court's order required implementation. The Court directed that the reinstatement be effected within a week and clarified that the absence of a stay favored compliance with the High Court order. The appeal was disposed of with no costs, reinforcing a principle that serious misconduct can merit reinstatement without back wages when the remedy is otherwise appropriate.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 17 of the P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The Union of India argued the charges were very serious and that the Tribunal and High Court erred in granting reinstatement with 50% back wages. It urged that the reinstatement be without back wages, noting no interim order was in place and the employer's obligation to implement the High Court's order. It sought reinstatement from the date of the High Court's order with salary and perquisites.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contended that the misconduct warranted a different remedy, namely reinstatement with back wages as awarded by the Tribunal; he challenged the leniency and urged adherence to the Tribunal’s direction.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

... . . -\ ## UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. _v._ ## P.K. KUTTAPPAN FEBRUARY 28, 2007 [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND ALT AMAS KABIR, JJ.] ## _Service Law:_ . _!_ _Back wages-Postal Department-EDDA-Dismissed on charges of nondelivery 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._ Ji. 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 reinstatement with 50% back wages. Since Department's writ petition was dismissed by the High Court, it filed the present appeal. , > ~ ... E ## Disposing of the appeal, the Court 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 appellantF 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. 433 434 [2007] 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS A G. Prakash for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by _I_ **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 :-" ## 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 E 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 F 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 G devotion to duty violating the provisions of Rule 17 of the P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. **H** ## Article 3 That Sri P.K.Kuttappan while working as EDDA Parakkadavu did not deliver RL 979 of Poovathussery addressed Omana Thomas _Clo_ ## ' 435 U.0.1. _v._ P.K. KUTTAPPAN [LAKSHMANAN. J.] 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 B 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 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 the matter ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages. D 7. 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 E 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. 8. 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 F 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 G and he is also entitled for salary and other perks from that date. 9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. JO. No costs. RP. Appeal disposed of. H