Disciplinary proceedings can proceed despite a parallel criminal trial, provided due process is followed, and an employee's non-cooperation may negate claims of denied natural justice.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member(A))

By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief:

“(a) To call for the records of the 1^st Respondent pertaining to his order made in Memo No:STC/3- 30/2014/TR, dated 06.05.2015, and the order of 2^nd Respondent made in Memo No.F/IV/13/09, dated 10.10.2014, and set aside the same; consequent to

(b) direct the 2^nd Respondent to conduct afresh inquiry on the charges levelled against the Applicant vide Rule 10 charge memo, dated 28.02.2011, after affording the reasonable opportunity to her, also to

(c) direct the Respondents to finalize the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the applicant under Rule 10 of GDS (C&E) Rules, 2001, by taking into account of the verdict to be given in criminal case pending against her; and

(d) To pass such further orders as this Hon. Tribunal may deem fit and proper.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:

2.1. The Applicant was working as Gramin Dak Sevak Sub-Postmaster, Konalai Extra Departmental Sub-Office (EDSO), now called as Gramin Dak Sevak Sub-Office (GDS SO), under Srirangam HO. While working as such, she was placed under off duty by an order, dated 04.08.2009, by the 3rd Respondent. It has not been ratified by the competent authority.

2.2. A charge sheet, dated 28.02.2011, under Rule 10 of the GDS (C&E) Rules, 2001, was issued to the Applicant. After 3 years and 9 months since placing the Applicant under put-off duty and after nearly 2½ years from the date of issue of the charge sheet to the Applicant, the 3rd Respondent lodged a criminal complaint against her and, thereby, an F.I.R. was registered on 10.05.2013, under section 420, 409, and 417 IPC . Based on the F.I.R., the Applicant was arrested on 20.12.2013, and remanded to judicial custody and was enlarged on bail on 03.01.2014.

2.3. Under such circumstances, she became unwell, both physically and mentally. The criminal case was also pending. Hence, she requested to postpone the inquiry till the verdict was given by the Trial Court. But, the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry ex-parte and furnished the PO's brief to the Applicant for her written defence.

2.4. Therefore, she approached this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA/310/01307/2014 with a prayer for conducting the inquiry fresh. Knowing very well of the same, the Inquiry Officer held the charges as proved, without affording reasonable opportunity to the Applicant. She replied to the IO‘s report and requested to postpone the inquiry by citing the above said criminal case. But, the 2nd Respondent dismissed her from engagement by an order, dated 10.10.2014. Her appeal also was rejected by the 1^st Respondent, by an order, dated 06.05.2015. Hence, the Applicant, with liberty, withdrew the previous OA and filed this fresh OA.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was charged in 2009, and a criminal case was initiated against her in 2013. She was arrested and held in judicial custody, which she claims was unjustified and caused significant physical and mental distress. Despite her request to postpone the disciplinary inquiry until after the verdict in the criminal case, citing overlapping allegations, this request was arbitrarily rejected.

3.1. Further, the learned counsel for the applicant argues that the charges in the disciplinary inquiry (Rule 10 charge s