The Doctrine of Merger implies that once an appellate order is issued, it supersedes the original disciplinary decision.

……Respondents For the applicant : Mr. C P Sahani, counsel For the respondents: Mr. A K Mohapatra, counsel Signed By:C SADISH O R D E R Hon’ble Mr.Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, J.M.

The applicant challenging the order of punishment of removal from service has filed this OA praying for following reliefs:

a) Admit the Original Application, and b) After hearing the counsels for the parties be further pleased to quash the impugned charge memo vide Memo No. F/4-1/2015-16 dated 04.03.2016 at Annexure A/8 and the impugned punishment order vide Memo No. F/4- 1/2015-16/Disc II dated 21.02.2019 at Annexure A/16. And consequently orders may be kindly be passed directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant by allowing the back wages and give all consequential service benefits. And/or c) Pass any other order(s) as the Hon’ble Tribunal deem just and proper in the interest of justice considering the facts and circumstances of the case and allow the OA with costs.

2. The brief facts of the case as inter alia averred by the applicant in the OA is that he was appointed as GDSBPM, Tumandi BO on 14.08.1998 and while working as such, Signed By:C SADISH respondent no. 5 visited the Tumand3i BO on 28.01.2015 and seized all the BO records in respect to the alleged irregularity committed by the Sub Postmaster of Dasapallo SO which is the account office of Tumandi BO. It is submitted that he was put under off duty by Respondent No. 5 vide order dated 29.05.2015. It is submitted that the put off duty order was issued in relation to a fraud case by one Sri Antaryami Sahoo and therefore suspecting that the applicant requested Sri Antaryami Sahoo to show and give him the copies of BO daily accounts of the disputed dates to verify whether there were any mistakes on his part. The SPM denied to show the daily accounts saying the daily accounts are not available and the applicant intimated the fact to Respondent No. 4 in his representation dated 06.07.2015. It is submitted that Respondent No. 4 disallowed his ex-gratia amount and extended the period of put off duty vide order dated 14.08.2015. It is submitted that applicant submitted a RTI application on 18.08.2015 to Respondent No. 4 requesting him to supply the copies of the important documents like BO daily account of Tumandi BO submitted by him to the accounts Signed By:C SADISH office and the copies of the BO slip4 s. It is submitted that Respondent No. 4 denied to supply the copies of those documents taking plea of investigation vide letter dated 18.09.2015 and the applicant preferred appeal on 28.09.2015 before Respondent No. 3 and that also was rejected vide letter dated 26.10.2015. It is submitted that Respondent No. 4 proceeded the applicant under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 and issued charge memo dated 04.03.2016 in which Article I to VI are same and identical. It is submitted that in article I to III, V and VI it is alleged that the applicant received some deposits within period from 12.06.2013 to 28.06.2013 which he entered in the passbooks and in all relevant BO records but did not credit the amount of deposits in the office account violating the provisions of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 131 of BO Rules. It is submitted that in Article IV it is alleged that the applicant has violated the Rules 133 & 134 of BO rules. It is submitted that applicant made appeal on 18.08.2016 and 23.09.2015 against the order of put off duty and non grant of suspension allowance but the respondent no. 2 rejected the appeal of the applicant and did not grant the Signed By:C SADISH suspension allowance vide his letter5 dated 08.04.2016 It is submitted that since the BO daily accounts carries details of all the remittances made on the day from Branch Office to Sub Office and the BO slip is the acknowledged receipt issued by the Sub Office against the remittance, therefore the BO dail