BRIJESH KUMAR vs POST UP CIRCLE

Reserved on 10.08.2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
th
This the 16 day of October, 2026
Original Application No. 1034 of 2022

Present:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member-(Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member- (Administrative)
Brijesh Kumar aged about 58 years, Son of Megh Singh, Resident of
House No. 14, Garhiya Govindpur, Tehsil Bhogaon, District Mainpuri.
…..Applicant
By Adv: Shri Pankaj Kushwaha
Shri S. C. Kushwaha
V E R S U S
1. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Communication.
Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
Department of Postal, New Delhi.
2. Post Master General, Agra Region, Agra.
3. Director, Postal Services, Agra, Region Agra.
4. Superintendent of Post Office, Mainpuri, Division, Mainpuri.
5. Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Office, Mainpuri Division Mainpuri.
6. Sri Varun Kumar Mishra, (the then) S.D.I., Mainpuri, East Sub
Division, Mainpuri, presently posted as Assistant Director, Postal
Services Region Office New Delhi.
7. Sri Vishun Dayal, (the then) Oversear, Mainpuri Division, Mainpuri.
. . . Respondents
By Adv: Shri M. K. Sharma
O R D E R

Delivered by: Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)

Heard Shri Pankaj Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant
and Shri M. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
Page 1 of 13

SAHIL SHARMA

2. The instant Original Application, under section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, has been filed by the applicant,
seeking following reliefs:
“1. This Hon’ble Tribunal may very kindly be pleased to calling for record to
quashed/set aside the impugned orders dated 30.08.2022 passed by respondent
no. 3/Director, Postal Services, Agra Region, Agra and order dated
29.09.2021 passed by respondent no. Superintendent of Posts, Mainpuri
Region Mainpuri (Annexure No. 1 & 2 in compilation-I) to the original
application, by which the respondent no. 3 has confirmed the order of
respondent no. 4, in which punishing the applicant from (Compulsory
Discharged from Engagement with monitory benefits (i.e. SDBS etc.) and
GDS Gratuity proportionate to Engagement period rendered by GDS).
2. This Hon'ble Tribunal may very kindly to issue appropriate
orders/directions to reinstated the applicant in service with all salary, full back
wages and consequential benefits thereof under the law.
3. This Hon'ble Tribunal may very kindly to issue appropriate l
orders/directions to count proper subsistence allowance, ex-gratia and pay @
37.5% of TRCA (time related continuity allowance) admissible from
29.05.2015 till the date 29.9.2021.
4. This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to issue any other suitable order or
direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
5. This Court may further be pleased to allow this claim petition/application
with costs in favour of the applicant.”
3. The facts, as stated by the applicant, are that the applicant was
initially appointed as GDS Branch Postmaster (BPM) at Garhiya
Govindpur, District Mainpuri on 07.06.1989. In 2008, he was assigned
additional duties relating to Alipur Kheda Branch Post Office. As per
the applicant, on 03.11.2008, during his absence, the then SDI, along
with another official, allegedly inspected his office and took away
certain official documents and records. The applicant submitted
complaints regarding the incident to the competent authorities, but
according to him, no action was taken for several years despite annual
audits being conducted.
3.1 The applicant states that when he again raised the issue in 2015,
the respondents, after a lapse of about seven years, placed him off duty
on 29.09.2015 under Rule 12(1)(a) of the GDS (Conduct and
Engagement) Rules, 2011. He challenged the said order and also alleged
Page 2 of 13

SAHIL SHARMA

that the authorities failed to investigate the officials whom he claimed
had taken away the documents. Thereafter, a charge-sheet dated
21.01.2016 was issued against him alleging misconduct, including
failure to hand over the charge and misbehaviour with departmental
officials. The applicant contended that the relied-upon documents and
statements of witnesses were not properly supplied to him and that the
disciplinary proceedings were conducted without giving him an
effective opportunity to defend himself.
3.2 The applicant further states that an inquiry report was submitted
on 06.03.2017 and, thereafter, he was dismissed from service on
31.05.2017. His statutory appeal was not initially decided, whereupon
he approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 732/2018. The said O.A.
was disposed of on 01.08.2018 with a direction to decide his statutory
appeal. Pursuant thereto, the Director, Postal Services, Agra Region, by
order dated 12.10.2018, remitted the matter for a de-novo inquiry from
the stage of appointment of the Presenting Officer and Inquiry Officer.
The applicant challenged the said order also before the Tribunal in O.A.
No. 1422/2018 with the grievance that the authorities had failed to
investigate the officials responsible for the disappearance of the
documents.
3.3 According to the applicant, again an inquiry report dated
11.08.2021 was submitted, without holding proper investigation on the
basis of earlier report and lastly, the Superintendent of Posts passed an
ex-parte order dated 29.09.2021, without considering the material facts,
compulsorily discharging him from engagement with monetary
benefits. It is the contention of the applicant that the inquiry was
conducted ex parte, without considering the relevant witnesses and
documents and his repeated requests and explanations, including his
inability to participate in the proceedings due to illness and COVID-19-
related circumstances were also ignored. His statutory appeal dated
15.12.2021 was subsequently rejected by the Director, Postal Services,
Agra Region vide order dated 30.08.2022. Feeling aggrieved by the
Page 3 of 13

SAHIL SHARMA

actions of the respondents, the applicant has approached this Tribunal
by filing the instant Original Application.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that
the applicant had been indisciplined during his service. On 31.10.1989,
the then complaint inspector went to the applicant’s BO for annual
inspection and he was denied to get the BO inspected and the applicant
also misbehaved with him. The applicant was charge sheeted vide
order dated 05.03.1990 and was awarded punishment of recovery for
Rs. 200/- from his TCRA. Thereafter, many reports were received from
concerned SDI/Mail Overseer regarding the applicant’s adverse
activities. The applicant also moved an application dated 04.11.2008
stating that the SDI (P) Mainpuri and Mail Overseer carried out
inspection of Gariya Govindpur in his absence on 03.11.2008 and took
away the office documents such as MS-87A, BO General etc. Thereafter,
the Sub Divisional Inspector Mainpuri submitted his reply to the said
application of the applicant and stated that the inspection was made in
presence of the applicant and the applicant’s statement was also
recorded. It was further stated that the said application was moved by
the applicant to divert the higher authorities from irregularities found
during inspection of Gariya Govindpur BO such as not proper
maintaining of BO Account and unauthorized tampering in stamp
balances of BO as the stamp balance of Post office was Rs 383.50/- as on
01.08.2008 that became Rs. 423.00/- as on 02.08.2008 without any
remittance received from account office.
4.1 Again, on 17.08.2015, the applicant submitted an application
illustrating all the correspondence done by him since 03.11.2008.
Thereafter, Shri Ashish Dixit, C. I, Mainpuri inquired the matter and
applicant denied to give any statement in respect of his letter dated
17.08.2015 in presence of some public & other GDS Employees.
Thereafter, keeping in view the applicant’s indisciplined activities,
disciplinary proceedings under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and
Page 4 of 13

SAHIL SHARMA

Engagement) Rules, 2011 were initiated against the applicant and was
put off duty vide office memo no. 29.09.2015.
4.2 Thereafter, charge-sheet was served to the applicant. However,
he did not attend the inquiry proceedings. The inquiry was completed
ex-parte and no representation was filed by the applicant against the
inquiry report. Finally, he was awarded the punishment of dismissal
from engagement vide office memo no. 31.05.2017. Thereafter, the
applicant filed his appeal against the punishment order, which was
decided vide order dated 12.10.2018 in compliance of the order of this
Tribunal passed in OA No. 732/2018. The appellate authority decided
the appeal of the applicant with the direction for de novo proceeding
from the stage of appointment of IO and PO. The said order was
delivered to the applicant on 08.11.2018.
4.3
Thereafter, IO and PO were appointed on 20.11.2018. The inquiry
officer fixed the date for inquiry proceedings on 12.02.2019, but the
applicant failed to attend the inquiry and filed OA No. 1422/2018
instead before this Tribunal challenging the order of de novo inquiry.
The applicant neither submitted his defence representation to the IO
nor reported to the IO even after repeated reminders. The inquiry was
completed ex-parte and finally the applicant was discharged from
engagement with monetary benefits vide order dated 29.09.2021. The
applicant preferred an appeal against the said order, which was
rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 30.08.2022.
4.4 As per the respondents, the applicant was not issued charge-
sheet on the basis on matter pertaining to 2008, but was proceeded
under Rule 10 for his misbehavior with the higher authorities, not
handing over the charge of the BPM and kept Rs. 11,312/- with him
while he was placed under put off duty on 29.09.2015. Therefore, there
was no delay as the charge-sheet was issued on 21.01.2016 on the
incident of 23.09.2015. It is further stated that CCA (CCS) Rules, 1965
are not applicable on GDS Employee.
Page 5 of 13

SAHIL SHARMA

5. In response, the applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit denying
the submissions of the respondents.
6. The applicant has also filed written submissions stating therein
that the respondents have not impartially examined the original dispute
i.e. the complaint made by the applicant on 17.08.2015 against some
officers, instead issued charge-sheet against the applicant. As per the
applicant, the basis of allegation-1 is the incident of 23.09.2015.
However, on the same day, the applicant had filed his written
complaint against some officers. The respondents have relied upon the
statement of departmental officers and have ignored the compliant
raised by the applicant vide letter dated 23.09.2015. The applicant has
placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of U.P. vs Shatrughan Lal (1998) 6 SCC 651 , wherein
it was held that in departmental proceedings, the officer must be given
a real and effective opportunity, a mere nominal opportunity is not
sufficient and providing incomplete documents violates the right of
effective defence.
6.1 The applicant has further stated that the allegation-2 relates to
non-transfer of charge to Shri Ram Kishore, but the applicant states that
the said officer himself did not come to take charge and from the
statement given by Shri Ram Kishore to the police, it is evident that he
was told not to take charge without instructions. Furthermore, the
order of put off duty dated 29.09.2015 did not mention that the
applicant had to immediately hand over the charge to Shri Ram
Kishore. With regard to allegation-3 the applicant states that the stand
of the respondents is contradictory as Shri Ram Kishore could not take
charge due to absence of instructions, then how the applicant could
have handed him the Government money. Therefore, the applicant has
not embezzled the money, on the contrary he had the amount
physically verified in presence of police and had requested the
department officials to collect the government money. The applicant
has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
Page 6 of 13

SAHIL SHARMA

case of Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank, 2009, 2 SCC 570,
wherein it was held that a finding cannot be made merely on the basis
of allegations and mere suspicion cannot substitute for evidence.
Furthere in the case of M. V. Bijlani vs Union of India 2006 5 SCC 88 ,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there must be some evidence in
support of the charge and the inquiry officer cannot give a finding
without considering the relevant material.
6.2 As regards the allegation-4, the applicant has stated that there
was no deliberate delay or refusal showing that the applicant
deliberately delayed receiving the letter. The applicant has placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India vs Gyan Chand Chatter, 2009 12 SCC 78 , wherein it
was held that departmental inquiry must be in accordance with
statutory provisions and natural justice and the charges should be
specific and should not be based on assumptions.
6.3 The applicant has further stated that Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965 placed various minor and major penalties on different
levels and the instructions further clarifies that the penalty imposed
should be in proportion to the gravity of misconduct/negligence. In the
case of Ranjit Thakur vs Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611 , the Hon’ble
Supreme court held that the punishment should be commensurate with
the offence and should not be disproportionate to the gravity of
misconduct/negligence. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. C.
Chaturvedi vs Union of India 1995 6 SCC 749 held that Tribunal does
not generally substitute the penalty discretion of the Disciplinary
Authority, if the punishment shocks the conscience, appropriate relief
can be granted in judicial review.
7. Submissions of learned counsel for both the parties have been
heard and records have been gone through.
8.
It is noted from the records that the applicant was working in the
respondents’ department as GDS Branch Postmaster (BPM) at Garhiya
Page 7 of 13

SAHIL SHARMA

Govindpur Branch Post Office, District Mainpuri. Subsequently,
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the allegations
of misconduct, including misbehaviour with departmental officials,
failure to hand over charge and retention of government money. The
applicant was placed off duty on 29.09.2015 and, thereafter, a charge-
sheet dated 21.01.2016 was issued to him under the relevant provisions
of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. The relevant
portion of the said charge-sheet is quoted as under:
“अनुच्छेद - -I
कथथत श्री ब्रजेश कुमार ( सेवावाररत ) शाखा डाकपाल गथ़िया गोथविंदपुर ने थदनािंक
23.09.15 को इसी पद पर काय करते हुये उनकी थशकायत थदनािंक 17.08.15 के सिंबिंध
में जािंच हेतु शाखा डाकघर गथ़िया गोथविंदपुर पहुचे मैनपुरी डाक मण्डल के थनरीक्षक
डाक ( जनपररबाद ) श्री आशीष दीथक्षत को जािंच हेतु शाखा डाकघर न ले जाकर एविं
जािंच कायवाही में अपेथक्षत सहयोग न करते हुये अशोभनीय व्यवहार थकया। उक्त कृत्य

करते हुये कथथत श्री ब्रव्रजेश कुमार सेवावाररत शाखा डाकपाल गथ़िया गोथविंदपुर ने
( )
अपनी सत्यथनष्ठा एविं कतयव्यपरायणता के अभाव का पररचय देकर ग्रामीण डाक सेबक

आचरण एविं एिंगेजमेंट थनयमावली के थनयम का स्पष्टतया उल्लिंघन थकया।
( ) 2011 -21
अनुच्छेद II

कथथत श्री ब्रजेश कुमार ( सेवावाररत ) शाखा डाकपाल गथ़िया गोथविंदपुर को इस
कायायलय के समसिंख्यक ज्ञापन थदनािंक 29.09.15 द्वारा सेवाबाररत कर थदया गया और
उन्होने ज्ञापन की प्रथत तो थदनािंक 30.9.15 को प्राप्त कर ली परिंतु शाखा डाकपाल के
पद पर अस्थायी रूप से समबद्ध थकये गये जीडीएस एमडी गथ़िया गोथविंदपुर श्री
रामथकशोर को शाखा डाकघर का चाजय न स िंपकर , ग्रामीण डाक सेबक के आचरण के
थबपरीत काय करते हुये अपनी सत्यथनष्ठा एविं कतयव्यपरायणता के अभाव का पररचय
देकर ग्रामीण डाक सेबक ( आचरण एविं एिंगेजमेंट ) थनयमाबली 2011 के थनयम -21 का
स्पष्टतया उल्लिंघन थकया।

अनुच्छेद-III

कथथत श्री ब्रजेश कुमार सेवावाररत शाखा डाकपाल गथ़िया गोथविंदपुर थजन्हे इस
( ) ,
कायायलय के सिंसिंख्यक ज्ञापन थदनािंक के द्वारा सेवाबाररत कर थदया गया था
29.09.15 ,
ने थदनािंक को सेवावाररत ज्ञापन की प्रथत प्राप्त कर लेने के बाद शाखा
30.09.15
डाकघर लेखा के अनुसार शाखा डाकघर के इथत शेष रुपया 11312/- ( ग्यारह हजार
तीन स बारह ( नगदी 8402+2910 स्टाम्प ) को , शाखा डाकपाल गथ़िया गोथबिंदपुर के
पद पर अस्थाई रूप से सम्बद्ध थकये गए श्री रामथकशोर जीडीएस एमडी गथ़िया
गोथविंदपुर को हस्ािंतरणा सोपन हेतु प्रस्ुत नहीिं थकया और उक्त कृत्य करते हुए शाखा
डाकघर थनयमाबली ( छठबा सिंस्करण ) के थनयम -11 (2) के नीचे थदये गए नोट में
थलखखत प्रावधानोिं का उल्लिंघन थकया। तदनुसार अपनी सत्यथनष्ठा एविं कतयव्यपरायणता

के अभाव का पररचय देकर ग्रामीण डाकसेवक ( आचरण एविं एिंगेजमेंट ) थनयमाबली
के थनयम का स्पष्टतया उल्लिंघन थकया।
2011 -21

Page 8 of 13

SAHIL SHARMA

अनुच्छेद -IV
कथथत श्री ब्रजेश कुमार ( सेवावाररत ) शाखा डाकपाल गथ़िया गोथविंदपुर , थजन्हे इस
कायायलय के समसिंख्यक ज्ञापन थदनािंक 29.09.15 के द्वारा सेवावाररत कर थदया गया
था को थनरीक्षक डाकघर मैनपुरी द्वारा पिंजीकृत पत्र सिंख्या के
, RU085597578IN
माध्यम से समानान्तर डाकघर खोलने हेतु जारी ज्ञापन की प्रथत भेजी गयी ज थदनािंक
,
को शाखा डाकघर गथ़िया गोथविंदपुर मे थवतरण हेतु प्राप्त हुयी। तथा थदनािंक
03.10.15
03.10.15 को थबभागीय पिंजीकृत पत्र प्राप्त न करके कथथत श्री ब्रजेश कुमार
( सेवावाररत ) शाखा डाकपाल गथ़िया गोथविंदपुर ने यह कहा थक दो थदन बाद लेगें । इस
द रान कथथत श्री ब्रजेश कुमार ( सेवावाररत ) शाखा डाकपाल गथ़िया गोथविंदपुर ने एक
पत्र थदनािंक अधोहस्ाक्षरी को प्रेथषत थकया थजसमें चाजय हस्ािंतरण के सिंबिंध
05.10.15
में मनग़ििंत तथ्य थलखे गए थे। इसके पश्चात थदनािंक को उक्त पिंजीकृत पत्र
06-10-15
प्राप्त कर थलया। इससे स्पष्ट है थक कथथत श्री ब्रजेश कुमार सेवावाररत शाखा
( )
डाकपाल वाथ़िया गोथविंदपुर , ने जानबूझ कर पत्र थवलम्व से प्राप्त थकया थजससे वह
अपने बचाव में मनगढन्त कहानी बना सके। उनका यह आचरण ग्रामीण डाक सेवक
के आचरण के थबल्कुल थवपरीत था। इस प्रकार उन्नत कृत्ये करते हुये कथथत श्री ब्रजेश
कुमार ( सेवावाररत ) शाखा डाकपाल गथ़ियोिं गोथविंदपुर ने अपनी सत्यथनष्ठा एविं
कतयव्यपरायणता के अभाव का पररचय देकर ग्रामीण डाक सेबक ( आचरण एविं
एिंगेजमेंट ) थनयमाबली 2011 के थनयम -21 का स्पष्टतया उल्लघन थकया।“
9.
It is further noted that the disciplinary inquiry was initially
conducted ex parte and finalized vide order dated 31.05.2017 whereby
the applicant was dismissed from engagement. Thereafter, the
applicant preferred an appeal, which was considered by the competent
authority, pursuant to the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.
732/2018. The appellate authority, vide its order dated 12.10.2018,
remitted the matter for conducting a de-novo inquiry from the stage of
appointment of the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. Thereafter,
the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. However,
the applicant did not participate in the inquiry and the proceedings
were again conducted ex parte. The relevant portion of the said inquiry
report dated 10.08.2021 is reproduced as under:
“7. आरोपित कर्मचारी द्वारा जांच कार्मवाही र्ें भाग न पिर्ा जाना
आरोथपत कमयचारी को प्रत्येक जािंच थतथथ पर सूचना भेजी गई। उन्होने प्रकरण
न्यायालय में होने का हठाला देते हुये जािंच कायवाही को रोके जाने , पहले न्यायालय
द्वारा न्याय थमलने की बात कही है और थलखी है इसके बाद भी सूचना में आरोथपत
कमयचारी को थलखा थक नयायालय में प्रकरण चलने के साथ साथ यह जािंच कायवाही में
आप बराबर भाग लेते रहें एविं आपके थवरुद्ध लगे आरोपोिं के सिंबिंध में अपना बचाव
करते रहें थजससे आपको यही से न्याय थमल सकें। वह थकसी भी थतथथ में उपखस्थत नहीिं
हुये थजसके कारण एक तरफा जािंच करनी पडी। प्रकरण में आरोपी कमयचारी को यह
भी थलखा गया थक यथद वह अपना पक्ष प्रस्ुत नहीिं करेंगे तो जािंच कायवाही एक तरफा
शुरू कर दी जाएगी , लेथकन वह थफर भी नहीिं आए। उन्होने जािंच कायवाही को
Page 9 of 13

SAHIL SHARMA

रुकवाने का कई बार थनवेदन थकया थक उनका प्रकरण माननीय न्यायालय में चल रहा
है तब तक जािंच कायवाही को रोक थदया जाए थनयमानुसार उनका थनवेदन मानने के
लायक नही था इसथलए जािंच कायवाही को नही रोका गया एक तरफा जािंच कायवाही
चलती रही अिंत में आरोपी कमयचारी को सामान्य परीक्षण हेतु थदनािंक 12-04-2021 को
बुलाया गया , वह नहीिं आए थदनािंक 27-04-2021 को एक अिंथतम अवसर थदया गया थक
वह 15 थदनोिं में अपना बचाव सार प्रस्ुत करे लेथकन उनका थलखखत बचाव सार नहीिं
आया इसके उपरािंत उन्हे थदनािंक को थदनोिं का समय देकर थलखखत
01-06-2021 3
सार देने हेतु थलखा गया लेथकन पत्र थमलने के बाद भी उनके द्वारा थलखखत सार प्रस्ुत

नहीिं थकया गया।

पनष्कर्म
8.
सभा प्रपत्रोिं को प्रदशय क से प्रदशय क बनाया गया सभी अथभयोजन गवाहोिं सभी
-1 -25
का परीक्षण थकया गया लेथकन आरोपी कमयचारी कथथत श्री ब्रजेश कु‌मार ( सेवावाररत )
शाखा डाकपाल गाढ्या गोथविंदपुर ने न तो अपना स्वयिं बचाव थकया न ही कोई बचाव
सहायक का प्राथयना पत्र प्रस्ुत थकया और कोई भा जािंच कायवाही की थतथथ को भी
उनखस्थत नहीिं हुया बार में भी कोई अपना बचाव सार प्रस्ुत नहीिं थकया ।
अतः आरोपी कमयचारी पर लगाए गए सभी आरोप पूणय रूप से थसद्ध होते हैं।“
10. Thereafter, order dated 29.09.2021 was passed, whereby the
applicant was compulsorily discharged from engagement with
monetary benefits. An appeal was filed by the applicant, however, the
same was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated
30.08.2022. The relevant portion of the said order is quoted as under:
“मैंने अपीलाथी द्वारा प्रस्ुत अपील जॉच ररपोटय आरोप पत्र तथा सिंबखित दस्ावेजोिं
, ,
का भली भािंथत अध्ययन थकया एविं पाया थक अपीलाथी ने अपनी अपील में कोई नया

तथ्य प्रस्ुत नहीिं थकया है। अपील में थलखी अथधकािंश बातें तकय सिंगत एविं आरोषोिं से

सम्बखित नहीिं है इसथलए अस्वीकार करने योग्य है। अपीलाथी के थवरूद्ध

अनुशासनहीनता एविं कदाचार के गम्भीर आरोप थे जो थक जाँच में थसिंद्ध पाये गये हैं।

अतः मैं ग रव श्रीवास्व थनदेशक डाक सेवाएाँ आगरा ग्रामीण डाक सेवक आचरण
, (
एविं पनर्ोजन थनयमावली के थनयम में प्रदत्त शखक्तयोिं का प्रयोग करते हुए
) 2020 18
अधीक्षक डाकघर थनपुरी मण्डल , मेनपुरी द्वारा चाररत दाद्यादेश ज्ञापन सिंख्या आईआर
/ जन फोर / थडग पाटय थसनोवो थदनाक 29.09.2021 की पुत करता है एविं श्री ब्रजेशा
कुमार पूवय आगीण डाक सेवक शाखा डाकपाल गथ़िया ग्रोथवन्दपुर ( अपीलाथी ) की
अपील को अस्वीकार (Reject) करता हाँ।
अपील उपरोक्तानुसार थनस्ाररत की जाती है।“

11.
It is the contention of the applicant that the disciplinary
proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural
justice and that the authorities failed to properly consider his defence,
his complaints against certain departmental officials and the documents
and circumstances relied upon by him. However, from the material
available on record, it is apparent that the applicant was afforded
Page 10 of 13

SAHIL SHARMA

sufficient opportunity to participate in the disciplinary proceedings.
The respondents have specifically stated that after the order dated
12.10.2018, the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed
on 20.11.2018 and the applicant was given opportunities to participate
in the de-novo inquiry. Despite the same, he did not appear before the
Inquiry Officer and did not submit his defence despite repeated
opportunities. Thus, the contention that the inquiry was conducted ex
parte, by itself, cannot establish violation of the principles of natural
justice when the applicant, despite being afforded opportunities, failed
to participate in the proceedings.
12. It is also relevant that the Director, Postal Service, Agra (appellate
authority), vide its order dated 12.10.2018 remitted the case back to the
disciplinary authority from the stage of appointment of inquiry officer
and presenting officer for de-novo (detailed) inquiry after considering
the applicant’s earlier appeal. The appellate authority also observed in
his order that the appellant would cooperate in the departmental
proceedings. The applicant did not participate in the fresh inquiry
proceedings. It is specifically mentioned in the fresh enquiry report that
14 dates were fixed for inquiry from 12.02.2019 to 12.04.2021 and letters
were sent to the applicant on each date. Since the applicant did not
present himself on any date, the inquiry officer had to conduct and
conclude the inquiry proceeds ex-parte. Therefore, it is noted that
sufficient opportunity was provided to the applicant to defend himself
in the inquiry proceedings, which he avoided and did not attend even
on a single date. Therefore, we do not find any procedural or legal
infirmity in the conduct of departmental proceedings, which may
warrant any intervention by this Tribunal.
13. The applicant has relied upon the various judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court contending that the disciplinary authority
cannot record findings merely on the basis of allegations or suspicion
and that an effective opportunity of defence is required to be provided.
However, in the instant case, the applicant has not been able to
Page 11 of 13

SAHIL SHARMA

demonstrate from the record that the inquiry was conducted without
giving him any opportunity, whatsoever, to defend himself. On the
contrary, the respondents have placed on record that sufficient
opportunities were afforded to the applicant in the de-novo
proceedings, but he chose not to participate. If an employee, despite
having knowledge of the proceedings and having been afforded
reasonable opportunities, abstains from participating in the inquiry, he
cannot subsequently challenge the proceedings on the ground of
violation of natural justice.
14. It is settled principle of law that in Original Applications,
challenging the orders in disciplinary proceedings, the scope of
interference of the Tribunals is very limited. In a catena of judgments
by the Apex Court, it has been held that the judicial review in the
disciplinary matters should not be in the form of re-appreciation of
evidence. The Courts should only look at the correctness of process and
not get into re-evaluation of evidence before the Inquiry Officer. The
findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, which are affirmed or
diluted by the Appellate Authority/Revisional Authority should not be
interfered with unless the applicant shows that the order is without
jurisdiction; or that there is procedural irregularity in conducting the
enquiry.
15. S.R. Tewari vs. Union of India
The Apex Court in the case of
2013(7) Scale Page 417 has held as under :-
"The role of the court in the matter of departmental proceedings is very
limited and the Court cannot substitute its own views or findings by
replacing the findings arrived at by the authority on detailed appreciation of
the evidence on record. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for
interference by the Court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases.
The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate
authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to
judicial review. The court has to record reasons as to why the punishment is
disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The
mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice".
16. In view of above, this Tribunal does not find any infirmity in the
impugned orders challenged by the applicant. The instant Original
Page 12 of 13

SAHIL SHARMA

Application is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed
being devoid of merit.
17. Interim Order, if any, stands discharged.
All the related MAs stand disposed of.

( Anjani Nandan Sharan ) ( Justice Rajiv Joshi )
Member (A) Member (J)
SahilSharma/-

Page 13 of 13

SAHIL SHARMA