(Open Court)

Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad ****

Original Application No.265 of 2023 This the 19^th Day of November, 2025.

Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mrs. Manju Pandey, Member (A)

Shailendra Kumar Bajpai, Aged about 41 years, son of Late Shri Dharmendra Nath Bajpai, Resident of A6-2208, Saviours Greenisle, Vishal Mega Mart, Crossing Republik, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Currently posted as MTS, Chikamberpur, Ghaziabad.

….Applicant By Advocate: Mr. Akash Kishan/ Mr. Ashok Gupta Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary (Ministry of Communication) New Delhi

2. Senior Superintendant of Post Offices, Ghaziabad Division, Ghaziabad.

3. Assistant Superintendant of Post Offices, Noida Sub Division, Noida.

…Respondents By Advocate: Mr. Rajni Kant Rai

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J):-

Mr. Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rajni Kant Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.

2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-

“a) Issue an order for quashing the impugned orders dated

22.02.2023 as well as 27.02.2023 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure no.1 to the compilation-I of this Original Application.

b) Issue an order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

c) Award the cost of the application in favour of the applicant.”

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, working as MTS (Multi-tasking Staff) at Chekamberpur S.O., was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry initiated vide memo no. B2/MTS/Shailender Kr. Bajpai/Rule-14/2019/20. The Presenting Officer submitted his written submissions before the Inquiry Authority, and the applicant also filed his written statement of defence on 11.09.2020. The Inquiry Authority concluded the inquiry and submitted its report dated 22.09.2020/25.09.2020, wherein both charges levelled against the applicant were found to be not proved. Even in the revised inquiry report dated 21.01.2022, the Inquiry Officer reiterated that both charges were not established. Despite the clean chit given by the Inquiry Officer, the impugned orders imposing penalty upon the applicant have been passed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant would be satisfied if liberty is granted to file a comprehensive representation ventilating all his grievances before the competent authority, and a direction is issued to the respondents to decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period.

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no objection if such direction is issued to decide such representation of the applicant as per rules.

6. Considering the grievance of the applicant and without entering into the merits of the matter, this O.A. is disposed of with direction to the applicant to submit a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all his grievances before the competent authority among the respondents within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event such representation is filed within the stipulated time, the competent ARPITA authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months thereafter.

7. It is made clear that I have not entered into the delay, laches and merit of the claim of the applicant. All points are open for consideration by the respondents.

8. Accordingly, O.A. No.265 of 2023 is disposed of. No costs.

9. All pending M.A.s, if any, stand disposed of.

(Manju Pandey) (Rajnish Kumar Rai)

Member (A) Member (J)

/Arpita/