Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice and prescribed procedure; failure to do so renders them invalid, and a penalty disproportionate to misconduct warrants interference.

PER MR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A):

1.The instant O.A. has been preferred by the applicant seeking the following relief(s):

“8.1 To set aside and quash the impugned charge memorandum dated 20.11.2021(Annexure-A/1), impugned inquiry Report dated 21.12.2021 communicated by Letter dated 24.12.2021(Annexure 2), impugned Penalty Order dated 01.04.2022 (Annexure A3), impugned show cause notice dated 12.09.2022(Annexure A4), impugned order dated 29.09.2022(Annexure A5) and the impugned order dated 07.08.2023(Annexure A6).

8.2 To direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits.

8.3 Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as ‘Postman’ in the Shillong GPO on 03.03.1997 and completed more than 26 years of service without any blemish or stigma. While working as Postman in the Shillong GPO, a Charge Memorandum dated 20.11.2021(Annexure-A/1) under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued against the applicant on the allegation of burning of undelivered postal articles. The Disciplinary Authority decided to hold an inquiry in respect of the charges of the applicant. Thereafter, the IO submitted its Report on 21.12.2021(Annexure-A/2) and the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the IO and communicated the same to the applicant vide Letter dated 24.12.2021(Annexure-A/2). Even in the inquiry report, the list of documents have only been stated to be produced. On the basis of the statement of the applicant given in his representations dated 23.10.2021 and 30.11.2021(Annexure-A/7) and his apology therein, the charges were held to be proved by the Inquiry Officer. As per the applicant, penalty of reduction to lower scale for 02 years with withholding of increment vide Order dated 01.04.2022(Annexure-A/3) was imposed on him.

As per the applicant, there is no evidence and findings of the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority against the charges framed against him, and the entire disciplinary proceedings have been conducted in gross violation of Rule 14 (5)(a), 14(23), 15(2A), 15(3) and 15(6), executive instructions, principles of natural justice and settled position of law. The Appellate Authority(respondent No. 5) acting as Revising Authority under Rule 29 without even waiting for the appeal against the penalty decided to revise and enhance the penalty without indicating any provisional conclusion with regard to the penalty i.e. the proposed penalty, thereby amounting to violation of Rule 29 (2)(i) and 1^st proviso to Rule 29 (1) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, O.M. dated 14.05.1968. In response to the same, the applicant submitted Revision Petition on 10.10.2022(Annexure-A/17). However, the respondent No. 2 acting as Revising Authority has arbitrarily upheld the penalty of removal from service vide Order dated 07.08.2023(Annexure-A/6). Hence this OA.

3. Respondents have filed their written statement, wherein they have averred that the applicant was issued Charge Sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 vide Memorandum dated 20.11.2021(Annexure- A/1) on the allegation of burning postal articles. The enquiry was conducted in a fair manner as per Rule imposing the penalty of reduction of pay scale for 02 years which was enhanced to removal from service upon review. Further, the charges framed against the applicant are not based on allegations, but supported by factual information and evidence, i.e., video clip submitted d