JUDGMENT :

SUNEET KUMAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Union of India/Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Varanasi, assailing the order dated 01 August, 2022, whereby, the suspension/put off duty of the respondent-original applicant, has been set aside. Aggrieved petitioners filed a review petition, which came to be dismissed by order dated 21 September, 2022.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised a short question that the Tribunal instead of directly setting aside the order of suspension/put off duty, should have remanded the matter to the authority to review the put off duty as the allegations against the respondent-original applicant was serious pertaining fraud and embezzlement of money of the depositors. In other words, it was not open to the Tribunal to have substituted itself for the competent authority.

4. It is not in dispute, inter se, parties that the provisions of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, is applicable. In exercise of powers conferred under Rule 12, the respondent/original applicant came to be suspended/put off duty, by the appointing authority vide order dated 7 December, 2020.

5. The respondent/original applicant raised challenge to the order, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent/original applicant could not have continued under suspension/put off duty, as the order was not reviewed as per rule/directions issued by the Director General and in support of his submission, reliance was placed on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through Secretary, 2015 (7) SCC 291.

6. The reasoning assigned by the learned Tribunal, allowing the original application of the respondent reads thus:

“6. It is not disputed that the applicant was placed under suspension on 03.01.2020. There is nothing on record to establish that his suspension was reviewed from time to time as prescribed under the rules. It is not understood as to what purpose will be served by keeping the applicant under further suspension. It is also a fact that almost 18 months have elapsed since the applicant had been placed under suspension without conducting a review as prescribed under the rules. Moreover, the said suspension order is in contravention of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary's case (supra).

9. For the forgoing reasons, the OA is allowed and the impugned orders dated 03.01.2020 and 07.12.2020 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service within a period of two weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before them by the applicant. The applicant shall be entitled for the arrears of TRCA as per rules.”

7. The original applicant came to be suspended/placed under put off duty, on allegations of fraud and embezzlement of the deposits made by the depositors. It is further alleged that the respondent manipulated the mobile numbers of the account holders and substituting it with his own mobile number and that of his relatives. On complaints received from the depositors, respondent/original applicant came to be placed under suspension/put off duty pending inquiry.

8. Rule 12 provides for put off duty which reads thus:

“12. Put Off duty

(1) The recruiting Authority or any authority to which the Recruiting Authority is subordinate or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Government, by general or special order, may put a Sevak Off duty.

(a) Where a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending.

(b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial.

Provided that in cases involving fraud or embezzlement, the Sevak holding any post specified in the Schedule to these rules may be put off duty by the Inspector of Post Offices or the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices of the Sub-Division, a