The tribunal affirms that disciplinary actions fall within the discretion of competent authorities, and the adequacy of penalties cannot be contested unless proven to be arbitrary or perverse.

ORDER

PER: HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking the following relief:

“....to call for the records pertaining to the following impugned orders:

i. Memo No.ADA/GDSMD/Yerrabalem, dated 18.09.2014 (A.II)

ii. Memo No.ADA/GDSMD/Yerrabalem/14, dated 12.10.2015 (A.VII)

iii. Memo No.B2/149/GDSMD/Yerrabalem, dated 29.01.2016 (A.IX)

iv. Memo No.ST-IV/15/05/2016, dated 28.06.2017 (A.XIII)

and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the rules and principles of natural justice and in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, set-aside and quash the said illegal penalty of removal from service awarded to the applicant with consequential directions to the Respondents to reinstate the applicant into service immediately with all benefits and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:

i. The applicant was appointed as GDS – MD, Yerrabalem BO, a/w , KC Works SO, Guntur Division, w.e.f. 29.04.1995, and rendered twenty years of unblemished service. He was suddenly placed under put-off duty, w.e.f. 23.09.2013, without any prima facie case established against him and without furnishing any reasons there-for. After one year, the 4^th Respondent, who was appointed as Adhoc Disciplinary Authority, vide memo No.ST-IV/31/ADA/GNT/2014, dated 16.7.2014, irregularly issued a charge sheet under Rule-10 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, through memo No.ADA/GDSMD/Yerrabalem, dated 18.09.2014, containing false and fictitious allegations. Articles I to IX contained allegations that he had received registered letters/Speed Post Articles/Aadhar Letters, which he did not deliver to the addressees, but showed them as delivered in the respective entry in the Postman Book of GDSMD, Yerrabalem BO. He also received Aadhar letters/ordinary letters which he did not deliver to the addressees concerned and kept them in his personal custody at his residence and the same were seized by the squad on 21.09.2013. He violated the provisions of Rule 66 of the Book of Branch Office Rules and, thereby, failed to maintain devotion to duty, contravening the provisions of Rule-21 of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.

ii. On denial of the charges by the Applicant, the 4^th Respondent appointed the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer on 07.10.2014, to inquire into the charges levelled against him. According to the applicant, the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority failed to follow the statutory procedure of supplying copies of listed documents along with the charge sheet, violating the principles of natural justice and the orders of the CVC and the DOPT. Consequently, the applicant could not submit effective written statement of defence at the initial stage.

iii. It is also alleged that the Inquiry Officer (IO) conducted the inquiry in a biased manner against the statutory procedure as shown below:

a. The IO failed to read out the statements of the applicant recorded during the course of preliminary investigation and did not give him opportunity either to deny or admit their contents either during first and preliminary hearing or at any time during the course of inquiry, even though he himself relied upon them to prove the allegations against him.

b. The IO failed to get all the documents requisitioned for the defence of the applicant.