Disciplinary actions must adhere to procedural norms and authority limits as stipulated in the governing rules.

ORDER

Per Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A.M. :- This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:-

“(i) Order No.: A1/Belahi Khas BO/2020-21 dated 20.03.2023 issued by Inspector Posts, West Sub Division, Hathuwa, as contained in Annexure-A/1 may be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The Memorandum of Charge dtd. 16.10.2021, issued by the Inspector Posts, West Sub Division (Gopalganj), implicating applicant in departmental proceeding without competence, in violation of Rule 4(3) (c) of Department of Posts, GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020, as contained in Annexure-A/4 may be quashed and set aside.

(iii) The Inquiry Report dated 23.11.2022, issued by the Inquiry Officer, forwarded to the applicant by the Disciplinary Authority vide his Notice dated 11.01.2023, as contained in Annexure-A/10, may be quashed and set aside.

(iv) The applicant may be directed to reinstated to his post with all consequential benefits.

(e) Any other relief/reliefs as the applicant is entitled and Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice. ”

2. The facts of the case, as per the applicant, are as follows:-

(a) The applicant is an employee of GDS Cadre of Department of Posts whose order of engagement was issued vide order dated 02.12.2016 (Annexure A/2) after observance of due process of selection against the post of GDS MD of Belahi Khas Branch Post Office in account with Kateya Sub Post Office, redeployed to K. Matihania Branch Post Office in account with Kuchaikote Sub Office under Gopalganj Head Post Office in Siwan postal Division, Siwan.

(b) It is alleged by the applicant that without any notice he was placed under Put Off Duty vide Order dated 08/07/2020, issued by Inspector Posts West Sub Division, Hathwa (Gopalganj) Siwan. After more than 16 months of his Put off Duty, vide Memorandum dated 16- 10-2021, he was implicated in a wholly erroneous and motivated departmental proceeding [Annexure-A/3].

(c) In the Memorandum of Charge, no allegation of misconduct has been made against the applicant rather there is allegation of securing appointment by him in connivance with the then Engaging Authority. In other words, the existing Engaging Authority Cum Disciplinary Authority has tried to challenge the administrative decision made by his own predecessor in issuing Order of Engagement in favour of applicant. A bare perusal of the alleged allegation reveals and categorically proves that the same is not sustainable on the point of competence/jurisdiction of same authority in challenging the decision of his own predecessor. Under Rules as well as in law, such power is vested in an authority superior in rank, not in the same authority.

(d) The Memorandum of Charge dated 15-11-2022 was issued to applicant under Rule 10 (B) of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020 which, according to the applicant, is incorrect. It is submitted that for the said allegations there is specific Rule-4 (3) (a), (b) and (c) of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020. The said Rule commands the Superior authority to call for the records relating to the engagement of Gramin Dak Sevaks made by the Engaging Authority, and if such Engaging Authority appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by any law or rules time being in force; or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, such superior authority may , after giving an opportunity of being heard, make such order as it thinks fit directing the engaging authority to act under Rule 8 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules or to have initiated action to remove from engagement after following the procedure laid down under Rule 10 of the Rules