Holding

The order directing reinstatement with 50% back wages is set aside; only reinstatement without back wages is ordered.

Summary

P.K. Kuttappan, an EDDA in the Postal Department, was dismissed on multiple charges of failing to deliver registered letters, alleged violations of Rule 17 of the P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. The Service Tribunal ordered his reinstatement with 50% back wages, a decision affirmed by the Kerala High Court. The Union of India appealed, contending that the seriousness of the misconduct precluded any back‑wage award. The Supreme Court held that the charges were very serious and that reinstatement could be ordered, but the direction for 50% back wages must be set aside. Consequently, the Court modified the earlier orders, directing only reinstatement effective from 25 January 2005 with full salary and perks from that date. The appeal was disposed of with the modification.

Issues considered

Whether a dismissal for serious misconduct under Rule 17 warrants reinstatement with back wages.
Whether the Tribunal and High Court erred in granting 50% back wages despite the gravity of the charges.
Effect of the absence of an interim order on the enforcement of the High Court's reinstatement order.

Subjects

service lawdismissalback wagesreinstatementpostal departmentconduct rulesserious misconductRule 17

Judgment

... . . -\
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
A

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 ofnon-
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
reinstatement with 50% back wages. Since Department's writ petition was
Ji.
, 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. IParas 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 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.

Article 3 ,,'
That Sri P.K.Kuttappan while working as EDDA Parakkadavu did not
H deliver RL 979 of Poovathussery addressed Omana Thomas Clo
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 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