Madras High Court
WP/10752/2026 of Union of India Vs R MAHALAKSHMI on 24 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on
24.08.2026
Pronounced on
02.09.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WP No. 10752 of 2026 and
WMP No.11675 of 2026
1. Union of India
Rep, by The Postmaster General,
Western Region(TN),
Coimbatore-641 002
2. The Director of Postal Services
O/o.The Postmaster General,
Western Region (TN),
Coimbatore-641 002
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices
Krishnagiri Division,
Krishnagiri-635 001
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
R.Mahalakshmi
W/o.S.Gururajan,
No.1/200, Fort Mathagondapalli,
Denikottai Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records of order issued by the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, High Court Campus, Chennai -600104 in O.A.No.931 of 2017 dated 14.07.2025. in allowing the O.A filed by the respondent with directions and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms.Sunita Kumari, SPC
For Respondent(s):
Mr.C.Premkumar
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
(Krishnaswamy Govindarajan,J.) The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, in OA/310/00931/2017.
2. The successful applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal is the respondent herein.
3. The applicant filed the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal to quash the penalty order dated 09.09.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent, imposing the punishment of removal from engagement and upheld by the appellate authority by an order dated 25.05.2017 and to further direct the authorities to reinstate her in service with all service benefits.
4. It is the case of the applicant in the Original Application that she was provisionally selected for the post of GDS BPM at Doddaudbbanur B.O. under Thalli S.O. by order dated 10.05.2007 and was regularly appointed with effect from 26.05.2007 as per the memo dated 11.12.2007. It is her further case that the post of GDS MD subsequently became vacant due to the retirement of the incumbent. Despite the sensitive nature of the post which involves the delivery of Tapals, Money Orders, and mail bag conveyance, the authorities failed to fill the vacancy or engage an outsider. Although the applicant repeatedly requested either a regular appointment or a temporary engagement for the GDS MD role, her requests went unanswered. Instead, she was unofficially directed to take over the duties of both BPM and MD post, despite her ill health. Later, the applicant was issued with a charge sheet dated 10.07.2014 alleging a failure to deliver unregistered letters between 01.01.2014 and 28.01.2014, duties that pertaining to the GDS MD role and not to BPM. Following the charges, an inquiry was conducted in which, the applicant also participated and based on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the 3rd respondent passed an order removing her from service on 09.09.2016. Aggrieved by the removal order, the applicant preferred an appeal on 18.01.2017, which was rejected by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 25.05.2017.
5. The applicant contended that knowledge of cycling is a mandatory requirement for the post of GDS MD. Despite her repeated requests, no regular appointment was made to the vacant GDS MD post. Consequently, unwarranted charges were framed against her, despite the fact that she was never officially assigned to perform the duties of a GDS MD.
6. On the other hand, the appellants who are all the respondents in the
Original Application submitted that the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Hosur Sub Division had issued a memo dated 28.12.2013, directing the applicant to perform the duties of GDS MD in addition to her existing role as Branch Post Master (BPM), until further orders. However, the applicant failed to comply with this directions and retained both accountable and ordinary postal articles without delivering them. This failure happened over a period of seven days, adversely affected the delivery performance of Krishnagiri Division and attracted negative observations from the higher authorities. It is their further case that non delivery of article is a serious misconduct. and only on that basis, the impugned order of dismissal was passed.
7. We heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondent.
8. The counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent was was provisionally selected for the post of GDS BPM at Doddaudbbanur B.O. by order dated 10.05.2007 and was regularly appointed with effect from 26.05.2007 as per the memo dated 11.12.2007. The respondent was entrusted with the duties of GDS MD on retirement of Sri.S.Muddappa, GDS MD vide memo dated 28.12.2013. It is the case of the respondent that the delivery is not her job and as such the punishment imposed against her on the basis of non delivery of article is not sustainable.
9. No doubt that the respondent was originally appointed as a GDS BPM. However, on retirement of one S.Muddappa, GDS MD, the said job of GDS MD was additionally given to the respondent. In fact, the respondent took the complete charge from from S.Muddappa on his retirement and necessary order was also issued to that effect vide Memo No.GDSMD/Doddaubbanur/Dlgs dated 28.12.2013. For better appreciation, the scanned version of the said memo is as below:
10. From the above, it is clear that the respondent is incharge of GDS MD of Doddaudbbanur B.O. and as such, non delivery of articles is a serious offence especially in postal department.
11. The respondent in the Writ Petition was employed under the Department of Posts, specifically as a Mail Delivery person. The primary service rendered by the postal department is the timely delivery of articles entrusted to it. An employee of the postal department who fails in the basic duty of delivering articles, and further neglects to inform superior officials of such non-delivery, commits a serious dereliction of duty. Accordingly, the punishment imposed for the said misconduct is fully justified.
12. However, the Central Administrative Tribunal failed to consider these aspects and erroneously allowed the original application filed by the respondent. The counsel for the respondent repeatedly argued that the respondent was caring for a three-year-old child and that it was not her duty to deliver mail, whereas the respondent took charge as a GDS MD upon the retirement of the previous incumbent. Once she assumed charge of the said post, it became her bounden duty to ensure that all postal articles were delivered in a timely manner. Furthermore, she never denied that she was not the official designated for the delivery of mail especially the earlier GDS MD handed over the charge to the respondent.
13. In light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the charges against the respondent stand proved beyond doubt. The misconduct is serious in nature, as any failure to deliver postal articles to the intended recipients severely undermines public trust and adversely impacts the integrity of the entire Department of Posts.
14. In view of the same, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 02-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KSA-2
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. KSA-2 Order made in WP No. 10752 of 2026 02-09-2026