Charge memo for major penalty must be approved by competent disciplinary authority; issuance by minor penalty authority without approval vitiates proceedings.

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) :

In the present OA, filed u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) That the Hon‟ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned penalty order dated 16.09.2011 (Annex. A/1), Appellate Authority order dated 20.03.2012 (Annex. A/2), Revisional Authority order dated 23.07.2014 (Annex. A/3), Charge Sheet dated 14.09.2005 (Annex. A/4), IO Report (Annex.A/7) and entire disciplinary proceedings declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, against the rules and against the principles of natural justice and law of the land and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all the consequential benefits including the arrears of back period pay and allowances deeming no charge sheet was issued to the applicant.

(ii) Any other relief which the Hon‟ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation.”

2. In opposition to the claim of the applicant, the respondents have filed their counter reply, stating that the claim of the applicant in the OA is misconceived and the OA deserves dismissal. The applicant has filed rejoinder and reiterated the claims.

3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties in part at length on 30.09.2024 as well as today. With their assistance, we have also perused the pleadings available on record.

4. The undisputed facts, as evident from the pleadings, are that the applicant was initially appointed to the post of LDC on 26.02.1982 under the respondents. He was promoted to the post of Postal Assistant in the year 1991. While he was posted at the respondents’ office at Noida, departmental proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide the impugned charge memo dated 14.09.2005 (Annexure A/4). The applicant denied the charges and the Disciplinary Authority appointed Inquiry Officer (IO) and Presenting Officer (PO). Pursuant thereto, the IO submitted his report dated 16.12.2010 vide which the charges were proved against the applicant. The Disciplinary Authority had passed the impugned disciplinary order dated 16.09.2011 (Annexure A/1), vide which penalty of removal from service was inflicted upon the applicant. The statutory appeal of the applicant was rejected vide the impugned Appellate Order dated 20.03.2012 (Annexure A/2) and revision petition preferred by the applicant was also rejected vide the impugned Revisional Authority order dated 23.07.2014 (Annexure A/3). During the pendency of the OA, the applicant is stated to have attained the age of superannuation.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that though the applicant has pleaded various grounds in support of his claim, however, at this stage, he prays for grant of relief as sought by the applicant on the ground that as the impugned charge memo has neither been issued nor been approved by the competent Disciplinary Authority, the entire disciplinary proceedings stands vitiated and the impugned orders of penalty are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He reserves the other grounds available to the applicant to be raised, if so required in future.

6. To elaborate, Mr. Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the competent Disciplinary Authority for initiation of major penalty against the applicant is Director Postal Service (DPS) whereas the impugned charge memo has been iss