Disciplinary authorities possess exclusive power to determine misconduct and appropriate penalties based on evidence, subject to principles of natural justice.

ORDER

PER: HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following relief:

“a. …..to call for the records pertaining to Order No.F.IV/3/2018- 19/YLK dated 10.1.2019 (Annexure-I), No.F.IV/3/2018-19/YLK dated 29.9.2020 (Annexure-VI), and Memo No.ST- II/GDS/Appeal/174/YL/PDT dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure-VIII) and

b. declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the rules and instructions prescribed and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and

c. set aside and quash the said illegal orders with consequential direction to the Respondents to reinstate the applicant into service with all service benefits and

d. pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. The facts of the case, in brief, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:

i. The applicant has challenged the penalty of “Removal” awarded by the 4^th Respondent, without establishing the charge. The penalty was confirmed by the Appellate Authority / 3^rd Respondent, vide Memo No.ST-II/GDS/Appeal/174/YL/PDT, dated 23.09.2021, mechanically, without going into the evidence and merits of the case. It is submitted that the 4^th Respondent issued the charge sheet under Rule 10 of the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011, after more than 8 months, containing false and fictitious allegations for the alleged failure to account for some amounts. The 1^st sitting of the enquiry was held on 26.03.2019 and the last sitting on 21.02.2020. The Inquiry Officer took more than one year to complete the inquiry.

ii. After completing the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report, dt.7.7.2020, holding the charges as proved. It was supplied to the applicant, who, in turn, submitted his representation, dt.31.08.2020, to the Recruiting Authority / R4, who agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and awarded the economic capital punishment of ‘Removal from Service’, vide memo No.F.IV/03/2018-19/YLK, dt.29.09.2020. Aggrieved with the unjust and disproportionate penalty, the applicant submitted appeal, dt.20.04.2021, to the Appellate Authority, who rejected the same, without considering the evidence on record and also the submissions made by the applicant.

iii. According to the applicant, the penalty of ‘Removal from service’, is too harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of offence. The evidence, in this case, has not been evaluated judiciously and the submissions made by the applicant were not at all taken into consideration. The action of the Respondents, in this regard, is illegal, arbitrary and against the rules. Hence, this OA.

iv. It is further submitted that the applicant was appointed as GDS BPM Siddareddipalle BO a/w Mydkur SO Proddatur Division, w.e.f. 14.11.2003. Ever since he entered the department, he worked hard, sincerely and honestly, without any complaints or adverse report against him, from any quarters. While working as such, he was put off duty and a charge sheet under Rule 10 of the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011, was issued to him by the SPOs Proddatur Division / R4, vide Memo No.F-IV/3/2018-19/YLK, dt.10.01.2019, containing false and fictitious allegations. The gist of the charges leveled against him is furnished below:

Article-I

That the said Sri Y.Lakshmi Kanthaiah, while working as GDS BPM, Siddareddipalle BO a/w Mydekur SO under Proddatur HO, during the period from 10.07.2015 to 05.09.2018, had accepted an amount of Rs.61,000/- from the depositor of SSY account no.3180616900 standing open at Siddareddipalle BO as noted in the below mentioned table, and not