Failure to conduct a de novo inquiry as specifically directed by a competent court renders a subsequent disciplinary order against an employee procedurally illegal and liable to be quashed.

O R D E R

Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):

1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-

(i) Quash Order dated 29.05.2023 (Annexure A-16) delivered to the applicant on 26.06.2023 vide which the respondents have put applicant on deemed put off duty w.e.f. 30.03.2020 to 28.07.2022 and further ordered to pay him put off duty allowance @ 25% Basic TRCA, the same was delivered to applicant after issuance of notice in the present case to respondents on 07.06.2023 with direction to file short reply qua interim relief claimed by applicant in the OA. Though the date of order is reflected as 29.05.2023, but the same must have been passed at a later point of time with back date to damage the case of applicant and cause him prejudice.

(ii) Direct the authorities to make payment of salary to applicant from date of discharge vide orders dated 30.03.2020 till date of setting aside of the aforesaid orders by authorities on dated 11.03.2022 (Annexure A-6) and further till date of passing fresh order of removal of service vide dated 28.07.2022 (Annexure A-9) with interest @12% per annum from date the amount became due till actual payment.

2. The facts as submitted in the Original Application are that The respondents initiated a selection process for appointment of Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) vide notice dated 21.12.2011 (Annexure A-1), wherein the minimum educational qualification prescribed was 8th pass, with preference to matriculates, and relaxation permissible in exceptional circumstances. Pursuant thereto, the applicant was selected and joined service as GDS Mail Deliverer on 08.05.2012 (Annexure A-2) under the Gurgaon Head Office. The appointment was made by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Gurgaon, under the administrative control of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices and the Chief Post Master General (CPMG).

3. Subsequently, the applicant was served with a charge-sheet dated 10.08.2016 (Annexure A-3) under Rule 10 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, alleging that his educational qualification from the Council of Secondary Education, Mohali was not recognized by the competent authorities, thereby vitiating his appointment. The applicant denied the allegations vide reply dated 17.08.2016. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Report dated 23.12.2019 (Annexure A-4) was supplied to the applicant on 14.02.2020, culminating in his discharge from service vide order dated 30.03.2020.

4. Aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal dated 13.06.2020, which was rejected on 24.06.2020, followed by a revision petition that was also dismissed on 12.01.2021. The applicant then approached the Hon’ble Tribunal by filing OA No. 241/2021. During the pendency of the said OA, the respondents issued orders dated 11.02.2022 / 14.02.2022 (Annexure A-5 Colly) appointing a competent authority, and vide order dated 11.03.2022 (Annexure A-6) remitted the matter back for de novo enquiry. Consequently, the OA was disposed of as infructuous on 10.03.2022 (Annexure A-7). The applicant thereafter submitted a representation dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure A-8) seeking subsistence allowance/ex gratia payment due to financial hardship, which was not granted.

5. However, without conducting the de novo enquiry as directed, the responde