The court held that proper procedures were followed in disciplinary proceedings and upheld the dismissal of the applicant for serious violations of postal service conduct rules.

ORDER

Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member-(A) Heard Shri Chandra Mauli Pandey, the applicant, who appeared in person and Shri Mahendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By way of this original application the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-

“(i) This Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned 23.01.2020 passed by Disciplinary Authority and order dated 29.12.2022 passed by Appellate Authority (Annexure No.A-1 and A-2).

(ii) This Tribunal may graciously be pleased to issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits.

(iii) Any other relief, which this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.

(iv) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”

3. The facts, as stated in original application are that the applicant while working as GDS MC/MD was served with the chargesheet dated 16.02.2010 under Rule 10 of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2001. Thereafter formal inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report on 12.11.2015 in respect of chargesheet dated 16.02.2010. The applicant was asked to submit his representation within a period of 15 days vide letter dated 13.11.2015 but the applicant did not submit any representation. The then Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, passed an order of dismissal from duty on the basis of material on record on 08.12.2015. Aggrieved, by this, the applicant filed OA No. 1472/2015, which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 13.04.2017 with direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal of the applicant, if it is filed within a month, within a period of three months. In pursuance of the direction of the Tribunal, the applicant filed appeal dated 13.05.2017. The appeal of the applicant was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.07.2017.

4. OA No.877/2017 had been filed challenging the orders dated 13.07.2017 and 08.12.2015 based on the following main grounds:

a.) The order dated 13.07.2017 is manifestly erroneous because Shri I. K. Shukla is a opposite party in the complaint case No. 1875/15 filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate (in short CJM), Basti.

b. The disciplinary authority has violated the DG Posts letters dated 26.07.1990 and 14.09.1994 while putting off the applicant from duty.

c. Appointment of a retired officer of Group 'A' and Group 'B' for the purpose of departmental inquiry of the GDS under rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules 2001 and 2011 is violative of DG Posts letter dated 29.01.1996.

d. The principles of natural justice have not been followed by the disciplinary authority.

e. The disciplinary authority has violated the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 28.07.2015 as well as order dated 14.05.2015 passed by this Tribunal in respect of providing full opportunity to the applicant.

f. Appointment of Shri Chandra Prakash Mishra as Presenting Officer is also illegal as he is opposite party in the Complaint Case No. 1875/10 filed before CJM, Basti.

g. The demanded documents were not made available to the applicant.

h. Written brief of the Presenting Officer has not been made available to the applicant.

i. Inquiry report has not been made available to the applicant.

j. The order dated 08.12.2015 has been passed without obtaining defence statement from the applicant.

5. The Tribunal disposed of OA No.877/2017 with the following directions:-

“……28. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the respondent No. 4/ appellate authority and the punishment dated 08.12.2015 passed by the respondent No. 5/ disciplinary authority are quashed and set aside and the