A put-off-duty order not confirmed within fifteen days automatically ceases and cannot later be revived.

The applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (GDS-BPM), was initially put off duty on 4 August 2009 following his arrest in a criminal case, but was permitted to resume duty on 1 October 2009 after being released on bail.

On 17 July 2018, he was convicted and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun, following which the Inspector of Posts again placed him off duty under Rule 12(1)(a) of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.

The order was received by the Superintendent of Post Offices on 23 July 2018 and confirmed on 3 August 2018.

Disciplinary proceedings were subsequently initiated through a charge-sheet dated 10 June 2019, and the applicant was ultimately dismissed from engagement by order dated 31 May 2021.

Whether the order dated 17 July 2018 placing the applicant off duty ceased to be effective because it was not confirmed by the competent authority within fifteen days as required by Rule 12(2) of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011?

Whether the confirmation order dated 3 August 2018 could legally revive the earlier order after the expiry of the prescribed fifteen-day period?

Whether the applicant was entitled to consequential benefits under Rule 12 after the impugned put-off-duty orders were held invalid?

The Tribunal applied Rule 12(2) of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, which provides that an order of put off duty made by an Inspector or Assistant Superintendent of Posts, where that authority is not the engaging authority, ceases to be effective on the expiry of fifteen days from the date of the order unless earlier confirmed or cancelled by the competent authority.

The Court construed the fifteen-day period as running from the date on which the put-off-duty order was made, not from the date on which it was received by the confirming authority.

It further held that an order which has ceased to operate by operation of the Rule cannot subsequently be revived by a delayed confirmation order.

Rule 12(3), concerning review and compensation where put-off duty exceeds ninety days, was relied upon by the applicant but was not independently determinative of the final holding.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was placed off duty on 17 July 2018, while the competent authority confirmed the order only on 3 August 2018.

It rejected the respondents’ argument that the period should be calculated from 23 July 2018, the date on which the order was received by the Superintendent, because Rule 12(2) expressly refers to fifteen days from the date of the order itself.

Consequently, the put-off-duty order ceased to be effective upon expiry of the statutory period without confirmation or cancellation.

Since the order had already become inoperative, the confirmation dated 3 August 2018 could not revive it.

The applicant’s subsequent conviction, grant of bail, initiation of disciplinary proceedings, and later dismissal from engagement did not cure the legal defect in the original confirmation process.

The subsequent confirmation dated 3 August 2018 could not revive it.

The Original Application was allowed; both orders dated 17 July 2018 and 3 August 2018 were quashed, and the applicant was held entitled to consequential benefits under Rule 12 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.

The respondents were directed to complete the exercise within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.