[2026:RJ-JP:6469-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13906/2024

1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary To The Government Of India, Department Of Posts, Ministry Of Communication And Information Technology Dak Bhavan New Delhi-110001.

2. Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur-

302007.

3. Director Postal Services, Western Region, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) - 342001.

4. Superintendent Of Post Offices, Jhunjhunu Postal Division, Jhunjhunu-333001.

----Petitioners Versus Kanhiya Lal Morya Son Of Shri Mali Ram Morya, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 23, Raigar Mohalla, Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu And Last Employed As Sub Postmaster Parasrampura, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.P. Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandra Bhan Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order

10/02/2026

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners (hereinafter to be referred as ‘department’) against the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as ‘tribunal’) by which the tribunal has partly allowed the original application filed on behalf of the respondent (hereinafter to be referred as ‘employee’) and remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority for conducting the fresh enquiry by another person from the stage of the circulation of enquiry report to the employee.

2. Counsel for the department submits that once the tribunal has reached to a conclusion that there is no procedural irregularity in conducting the departmental enquiry, then there was no occasion for the Tribunal to remand the matter back to the disciplinary authority for conducting the enquiry by the person other than the enquiry officer. Counsel further submits that as per Rule 50 of the P & T Manual Vol.-III the preliminary enquiry and regular enquiry can be conducted by the same person and prayed for allowing the writ petition.

3. Counsel for the employee opposed the submissions made by counsel for the department and supported the judgment passed by the learned tribunal.

4. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The tribunal while considering the matter (Original Application No.114/2015) passed the following order :-

“12. In respect of the third contention as to whether the incumbent DA could have conducted the disciplinary proceedings, the Applicant/CO had submitted that Rule 50 of P&T Manual Vol.-III provided as under:

"50 The authority who conducts the preliminary enquiry into a case of misconduct etc. of a Government servant will not be debarred from functioning as a disciplinary authority in the same case provided it has not openly given out its findings about the guilt of the accused official."

It was thus the position of the Applicant/CO Although the above said provision was for preliminary enquiry, the stage of regular Inquiry was a subsequent and more serious/important stage. Thus, it was averred that Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma, the appointed IO who had completed the Inquiry and submitted the Inquiry Report after proving all the charges, cannot act as DA further and impose punishment upon the Applicant/CO based on the same Inquiry Report. On the other hand, the Respondents submitted in this regard that as per Rule 51 of the P&T Manual Vol.-III, the prescribed appointing or disciplinary authority is unable to function as the disciplinary authority in respect of an official on account of his being personally concerned with the charges or being a material witness in support of the charge. It was further submitted that in the present case Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma was not personally concerned with the charge nor was he a material witness in support of the charge. Hence, there was no bar to him act as the DA to decide the case in which he himself previously was the IO. The respondents have also cited in support the decision taken in the Government of India, M/o