The court affirmed that reinstatement is essential for resuming disciplinary proceedings, clarifying that an employee not suspended cannot be deemed suspended following a remit to reconsider a prior penalty.

JUDGMENT

Alexander Thomas, J.

The prayers in the instant Original Petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows:

“…....to set aside Ext.P3 Interim Order in OA No.180/00329/2021 dated 20.08.2021 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in the interest of justice. Sufficient time for completion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent may kindly be granted. “

2. Heard Sri.S.Manu, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the petitioners in the OP/respondents in the OA and Sri.M.A.Shafik, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the OP/ the sole respondent in the O.A.

3. The petitioners in the OP are the respondents in the O.A and the respondent in the OP is the applicant in the O.A.

4. The prayers in the instant Ext.P1 Original Application, O.A.No.329 of 2021 filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are as follows:

“(i) To call for the records leading to the issue of Annexures A-1 to A- 18 and to quash the A-1, A-2 & A-3, in the interest of justice;

(ii) To direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant back in service with all consequential benefits including the arrears of pay and allowances as if the applicant had not been compulsorily retired from service;

(iii) To pass such other orders or directions as deemed just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case; and

(iv) To award costs of and incidental to this application.”

5. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P3 order dated 20.08.2021, directing that, in view of Annexure-A8 appellate order, the respondents shall reinstate the applicant in service, before further proceeding with the disciplinary enquiry, as ordered in Annexure-A8, is effectuated and that this would be subject to the final result of the O.A.

6. The respondent in the O.P will be referred for short as 'the original applicant/applicant'. The applicant, while holding the post of Postal Assistant under the Postal Department, was served with Annexure-A4 memo of charges dated 06.06.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Calicut Division (disciplinary authority), raising certain allegations therein. The applicant submitted her statement of defence and thereafter, regular enquiry for major penalty proceedings in terms of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules was initiated and completed. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent disciplinary authority has issued the impugned Annexure-A6 penalty order dated 30.07.2020, ordering that the applicant shall stand compulsorily retired from service as a punishment. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred Annexure-A7 statutory appeal in terms of Rule 24 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, before the 2nd respondent Director of Postal Services. The 2nd respondent appellate authority has issued Annexure-A8 appellate order dated 25.11.2020, holding that there is illegality and impropriety in the issuance of the impugned Annexure-A6 penalty order to the extent that the relevancy of additional defence do0cuments and additional defence witnesses has not been properly examined by the disciplinary authority and that therefore, the matter would require reconsideration. Hence, the appellate authority has remitted the matter to the 3rd respondent disciplinary authority, in terms of Annexure-A8 order, to reconsider the matter from the