Postal department faces CAT's ire for ignoring order
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has initiated suo motu contempt of court proceedings against the Directorate of Postal Services (...
https://iskablogs.blogspot.com/2011/09/postal-department-faces-cat-ire-for.html
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has initiated suo motu contempt of court proceedings against the Directorate of Postal Services (DPS), Madurai, for not complying with its orders. A bench of G Shantappa, judicial member, and R Satapathy, administrative member, took up the matter on Monday. It has been adjourned to Tuesday.
In its last order dated July 25, 2011, the Tribunal had directed authorities to complete disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner J Prema of Dindigul district within two months. Since no compliance report was filed, the CAT said it amounted to willful disobedience of its orders and hence a contempt.
According to her plea, Prema was sub-postmaster at Kodaikanal observatory in November, 2007. She was placed under suspension two days before she was due for retirement in May, 2009.
A bench of K Elango, judicial member and R Satapathy, administrative member, who heard the matter at the time, passed an order in July 2010 directing DPS Madurai and Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul, to complete disciplinary proceedings against Prema within six months. The bench also directed respondents to pay her the May, 2009 salary, arrears of the Sixth Pay Commission and GPF within a period of 10 days of receiving the order.
However, the respondents filed an application in February 2011 seeking an extension of six months. Instead, the bench granted them a window of four months in its order in April 2011. Since it could not be completed, another application was filed in June 2011 seeking a further extension of six months. This was made on the ground that they had to approach the President for compliance of directions of the Tribunal.
In its latest order, the Bench observed, "We are of the view that time and again the respondents are asking for extension of time, even though they have been given sufficient time to implement the directions of this Tribunal." The period was hence restricted to only two months with a rider that suo motu contempt would be initiated if orders were not complied with.
According to R Malaichamy, counsel for petitioner, "She was permitted to retire pending disciplinary proceedings but a charge memo has not been issued against her. The respondents have sought for extension of time on many occasions but she is cooperating. We want them to complete the enquiry."
Source;TOI
In its last order dated July 25, 2011, the Tribunal had directed authorities to complete disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner J Prema of Dindigul district within two months. Since no compliance report was filed, the CAT said it amounted to willful disobedience of its orders and hence a contempt.
According to her plea, Prema was sub-postmaster at Kodaikanal observatory in November, 2007. She was placed under suspension two days before she was due for retirement in May, 2009.
A bench of K Elango, judicial member and R Satapathy, administrative member, who heard the matter at the time, passed an order in July 2010 directing DPS Madurai and Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul, to complete disciplinary proceedings against Prema within six months. The bench also directed respondents to pay her the May, 2009 salary, arrears of the Sixth Pay Commission and GPF within a period of 10 days of receiving the order.
However, the respondents filed an application in February 2011 seeking an extension of six months. Instead, the bench granted them a window of four months in its order in April 2011. Since it could not be completed, another application was filed in June 2011 seeking a further extension of six months. This was made on the ground that they had to approach the President for compliance of directions of the Tribunal.
In its latest order, the Bench observed, "We are of the view that time and again the respondents are asking for extension of time, even though they have been given sufficient time to implement the directions of this Tribunal." The period was hence restricted to only two months with a rider that suo motu contempt would be initiated if orders were not complied with.
According to R Malaichamy, counsel for petitioner, "She was permitted to retire pending disciplinary proceedings but a charge memo has not been issued against her. The respondents have sought for extension of time on many occasions but she is cooperating. We want them to complete the enquiry."
Source;TOI
