G.S. SISTANI, J.

CM No. 19269/2016

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CM No. 19270/2016

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 80 days in filing the present application is condoned.

The application is allowed and disposed of.

W.P. (C) No. 4631/2016 and CM No. 19268/2016 (Stay)

1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge the order dated 31.10.2015 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in OA No. 1070/2010, whereby the OA filed by the respondent no. 1 was allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 31.10.2015 has modified the order of punishment from removal from service to penalty of “Censure” as provided under Rule 9(i) of the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 was working as Gramin Dak Sevak. The respondent No.1 was served with the Memorandum of charges dated 25/08/2007, under the provisions of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001, (in short 2001 Rules), the following articles of charge were framed:-

Article–I

“That above Shri Satpal Singh Gramin Dak Sevak Kurawa Branch Post office, while working as Mail Deliverer after availing leave from dated 30.03.2007 to 08.04.2007 did not assume charge on 09.04.2007 at Kurawa Branch Post office and without any information continuously remained absent upto 16.04.2007. Due to it the delivery work suffered badly.

Thus he violated the provisions of DG P&T letter No.43/15/65-Pen dated 7 June 1968 and violated rule 7 of Gramin Dak Sevak (Employment and Conduct) Rules 2001 and instruction issued time to time and Rule 21.”

Article–II

“That the above Shri Satpal Singh Gramin Dak Sevak Mail deliverer Kurawa Branch Post office on 09.04.2007, he went to Khatoli Sub Post Office with his son and abused and misbehaved with Shri K.D. Sharma Mail Overseer.

Thus due to the said act it is alleged that Shri Satpal Singh violated the provision of Rule 21 of Gramin Dak Sevak (Employment and Conduct) Rules 2001.”

3. Disciplinary Enquiry was initiated against the respondent No.1, after the inquiry officer conducted the disciplinary enquiry and submitted his report on 28/11/2007. It was held that department could not prove the first article of charge; however, the second article of charge was proved against the respondent No.1.The report of the enquiry authority was duly communicated to the respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 26/04/2008. On 06/05/2008, respondent No.1 submitted his representation against the enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority after due consideration and examination of all the facts, enquiry report and representation submitted by the respondent No.1, imposed punishment of removal from services upon the respondent No.1, vide order dated 02/07/2008. On 20/07/2008, the respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the competent Appellate Authority, i.e. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarnagar Division. The Appellate Authority refused to interfere with the order of the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 19/12/2008. Thereafter, respondent No.1 approached the Tribunal by filing the OA No. 1070/2010. The Tribunal, vide order dated 09/12/2010, partly allowed the OA and set aside the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority; and further directed the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh speaking order imposing any penalty other than dismissal or removal from service with a further direction to reinstate the respondent No.1 forthwith, if he has not crossed the age of superannuation. The said order was challenged by the respondent no. 2/Secretary, Ministry of Communication and IT, Government of India before this court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1653/2011. This court, vide order dated 11/01/2013, quashed the order dated 09/12/2010 passed by the Tribunal and remanded the mat