Disciplinary proceedings are invalid if based on prejudicial reliance on undisclosed inquiry reports and if initiated by an incompetent authority, infringing principles of justice.

ORDER

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)

Heard Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-

“i. To issue a writ orders or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 31.03.2022, 05.11.2021 passed by the disciplinary authority and enhanced punishment order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the appellate authority (Annexure No. A-1 to this Original Application in compilation No.I)

ii. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits forthwith.”

3. Brief facts of the case, as stated in the Original Application are that the applicant, while working as Sub Post Master, Jhansi Cantt. Sub Office / Head Treasurer, Jhansi Head Post Office, was served with a charge sheet dated 29.05.2020 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 containing two Articles of Charge relating to alleged irregular handling of Legal Tender Notes (LTNs) during demonetization operations in November, 2016.

3.1 The applicant submitted a detailed reply to the charge sheet dated 06.06.2020 denying the allegations and seeking withdrawal of the charge sheet on the ground that the charges were unsupported by documentary evidence and contrary to the established rules governing cash management in Head Post Offices. However, without considering the said reply, the Disciplinary Authority appointed the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer vide order dated 10.06.2020.

3.2 The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 28.05.2021 holding the charges are proved, which, according to the applicant, was done without proper appreciation of defence evidence, cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and relevant cash book records. The applicant submitted his defence representation disputing the findings and highlighting discrimination, procedural lapses and selective targeting.

3.3 Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed a penalty order dated 05.11.2021 imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by two stages for four years with cumulative effect. The applicant contends that the said order was passed mechanically, without due consideration of his defence submissions and material evidence on record.

3.4 Subsequently, the Appellate/Reviewing Authority issued a show cause notice dated 14.01.2022 proposing enhancement of punishment. Despite the applicant’s detailed reply dated 31.01.2022 opposing the proposed enhancement, the Appellate Authority passed the impugned order dated 25.05.2022 enhancing the penalty to dismissal from service, allegedly without assigning cogent reasons or addressing the grounds raised by the applicant.

3.5 Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred a statutory appeal dated 27.06.2022 before the Chief Postmaster General, U.P. Circle, which was not decided for a considerable period, compelling the applicant to approach this Tribunal by filing OA No. 1102/2022. Vide order dated 14.12.2022, the Tribunal directed the competent authority to decide the appeal by a reasoned and speaking order.

3.6 In purported compliance, the respondent authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 31.03.2023 in a cursory manner, without proper examination of the documenta