(Reserved on 16.10.2024)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR Original Application No. 505 of 2015 Jabalpur, this the 06th day of November, 2024 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Dashrath Prasad Gautam, S/o Shri Parmeshwardeen Gautam, working as GDS BPM, Date of birth 1.7.1970, R/o Village & Post Bhareva, District Umaria (MP).

…….Applicant Advocate for the applicant: Shri Vijay Tripathi Shri Samveg Tripathi V E R S U S

1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001.

2. Director General, Postal Services, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001.

3. Chief Post Master General, M.P. Circle, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal -

462012.

4. Superintendent of Post Offices, Shahdol Division, Shahdol – 484801 (MP). ……Respondents Advocate for the respondents: Shri S.K. Mishra O R D E R By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-

By means of the instant original application filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the applicant has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 11.03.2015 (Annexure A-1). Prayer has also been made Page 1 of 8 ANAND 2025.02.21 for a direction to the respondents to treat the intervening period from 17.11.2006 to 05.03.2009 as spent on duty for all practical purposes and for payment of arrears of TRCA as well as other monitory benefits.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that a criminal case was registered against the applicant under Section 498-A and 304-B read with 34 of the IPC on the ground that his wife Smt. Sandhya Gautam had committed suicide on 07.10.2006 and he was arrested by the police on 17.11.2006. Thereafter, the applicant was placed under put off duty with effect from 17.11.2006 vide order dated 11.12.2006 (Annexure A-2) and the respondents vide order dated 07.03.2007 sanctioned 25% TRCA as put off allowance. Subsequently, on being released on bail the applicant preferred a representation dated 22.02.2007 (Annexure A-3) followed by representation dated 18.12.2008 (Annexure A-4) to reinstate him in service. The applicant also requested to enhance his subsistence allowance in the aforesaid representation. Later on, the order placing the applicant on put off duty was revoked by the respondents vide order dated 05.03.2009 (Annexure A-5) pursuant to which he submitted his joining as Gramin Dak Sevak and finally, vide order dated 03.08.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kotma, the applicant was acquitted from the criminal charges. Thereafter, the applicant preferred Page 2 of 8 ANAND 2025.02.21 representation dated 15.05.2014 (Annexure A-7) and subsequently, representation dated 13.08.2014 (Annexure A-8) to the Superintendent of Post Offices (Respondent No.4) requesting to treat the period of put off duty from 17.11.2006 to 05.03.2009 as spent on duty and the same has been rejected by the respondent No.4 vide order dated 11.03.2015 on the ground that the applicant has not been acquitted on merits whereas he was acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt.

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2015, the applicant has filed the instant original application on the ground the criminal case registered against him for the offences under Section 498-A, 304-B read with 34 of the IPC and has nothing to do with the departmental misconduct , therefore, he should not have been placed under put off duty. The applicant pleaded that he was released on bail in the month of January, 2007, therefore, immediately after releasing on bail, he should have been reinstated in service because the offence registered against the applicant was not connected with any departmental misconduct as the applicant could not have influenced with any witness or tamper the documents of the department. Thus, the action of the respondents in keeping the applicant on put off duty is arbitrary, unjust, unfair and unreasonable in nature. The applicant also contended