Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

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

Decided
28 February 2007
Judges listed
AR. LAKSHMANAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 433 · 2007 INSC 233
Also cited as
  • (2007) 10 SCC 721 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Delay condoned.

p. 434, margin A

2

Leave granted.

p. 434, margin B

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 respondent.

p. 434, margin B

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.

p. 434, margin C

5

Our attention was drawn to the charges framed against the respondent 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 Articles entrusted to him for delivery on 16.3.1996, 18.3.1996 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 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 Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. Article 3 That Sri P.K.Kuttappan while working as EDDA Parakkadavu did deliver RL 979 of Poovathussery addressed Omana Thomas l.M.Thomas, Irimpan, Poovathussery, Parakkadavu entrusted on 9 .3 .96 and subsequent days but returned it undelivered false remark on 19.3.96 and there by failed to maintain devotion to duty violating the provisions of Rule 17 of the Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. Article 4 That Sri P.K.Kuttappan while working as EDDA Parakkadavu deliver or serve intimation on VP B-45241 of Bombay GPO to Mrs. Omana Thomas, Poovathussery, Parakkadavu which entrusted to him on 12.3.1996 and subsequent days but returned false remarks "Home continuously locked" finally on 18.3.96 failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty violating the of Rule 17 of the P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules,

pp. 434–435, margin C

6

In our opinion, the charges are very serious in nature. However, Tribunal and the High court taking a lenient view of the matter reinstatement with 50% back wages.

p. 435, margin C

7

In our opinion, the respondent, if at all, should have been in service only without 50% back wages and, therefore, the said order passed by the Tribunal and as affirmed by the High Court modification. We, therefore, modify the order passed by the Tribunal affirmed by the High Court and order only reinstatement and direction in regard to payment of 50% back wages. The respondent reinstated within one week from today.

p. 435, margin D

8

It is also pertinent to notice that the Special Leave Petition on 23.06.2005. This Court on 29.07.2005 has ordered only notice application for condonation of delay, Special Leave Petition and also prayer for interim relief. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to several and no interim order was granted in favour of the appellant-Union of Under such circumstances, the Union of India ought to have given the order passed by the High Court dt.25.01.2005. Since there is no 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.

p. 435, margin E

9

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. JO. No costs. RP. Appeal disposed

p. 435, margin G