CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, ERNAKULAM Original Application No. 180/00511/2019 Wednesday, this the 25^th day of June, 2025 CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J)

Hon'ble Ms. V. Rama Mathew, Member (A)

J. Shahabudeen, S/o. Jamaludheen, aged 52 years, Postman, Malayankeezh, Thiruvananthapuram-695571, Residing at Kulangara House, Konniyoor, Poovachal PO, Thiruvananthapuram-695 575. ..... Applicant (By Advocates : M/s. M.R. Rajendran Nair & Associates, Mr. M.R. Hariraj, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Viswajith C.K., Mr. M.B. Jayaraj, Mr. K. Rajagopal and Ms. Ganga A. Sankar)

V e r s u s

1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to Government of India, Department of Posts, New Delhi – 110 001.

2. Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum – 695 033.

3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Thiruvananthapuram South Postal Division, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 036. ..... Respondents (By Advocate : Mr. M.T. Muraleedharan, ACGSC)

This Original Application having been heard on 19.06.2025, the Tribunal on 25.06.2025 delivered the following:

O R D E R Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member –

The applicant challenges Annexure A1 memo dated 20.12.2018 issued to him informing that the period from 3.10.2016 to 19.10.2016 will be treated as dies non for having not worked on those days.

2. Before analyzing the legal and factual issues involved, it is essential to deal with the background which led to issuance of Annexure A1 memo. 3. The applicant was a Postman of Malayinkil Post Office. He was proceeded under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules by memo dated 20.9.2016 on an allegation that he left the Post Office on 30.9.2015 and 5.10.2015 during the office hours at 2.30 PM without permission of his superior officers. His statement was recorded on the basis of the complaint on 16.8.2016 by the IP (PG). It is alleged that at the time of recording his statement he allegedly misbehaved and was indifferent to the authority. Accordingly, memo dated 20.9.2016 regarding the above said conduct was issued to him. Based on the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority by Annexure A9 dated 28.6.2017 ordered withholding of one increment for 12 months. While the inquiry was pending, he was issued with Annexure A2 memo dated 30.9.2016 transferring the applicant to Uchakkada SO. He sought leave from 3.10.2016 to 8.10.2016 by Annexure A3 leave application enclosing Annexure A4 medical certificate. Later another leave application dated 9.10.2016 marked as Annexure A6 was submitted seeking leave for a period from 9.10.2016 to 18.10.2016 enclosing Annexure A7 medical certificate dated 9.10.2016. Annexure A2 transfer order was challenged by the applicant by filing OA No. 865 of 2016 dated 15.10.2016 before this Tribunal.

4. Pursuant to the filing of the OA by Annexure A8 order of the respondents dated 19.10.2016, Annexure A2 transfer order dated 30.9.2016 was kept in abeyance until further orders. When this order of keeping the transfer order in abeyance was brought to the notice of the Tribunal by order dated 5.6.2016, OA was disposed of holding that the OA was premature in the light of keeping in abeyance of the transfer order stating that “Annexure A8 was kept in abeyance till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.” A copy of the above order in the OA was produced as Annexure A8.

5. Annexure A8 order was challenged by the applicant before the Hon’ble High Court in OP (CAT) No. 200 of 2017, contending that Annexure A8 disclosed that the transfer order was kept pending till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. It was contended that Annexure A8 only stated that the transfer order was kept in abeyance until further orders. The OP (CAT) was filed on an allegation that after the disposal of OA No. 865 of 2016 the respondents were compelling him to abide by the OA in the light of the specific finding in the OA order that transfer order was kept in abeyance only till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings which had ended by