A revisional authority cannot predetermine enhanced punishment before considering the delinquent’s representation.

The applicant, Jugla Saran Tiwari, was employed as a Gramin Dak Sevak/Postmaster in the Postal Department. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 3 January 1997 for alleged violations of Rule 17 of the EDA (Conduct and Service) Rules. Following an inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 4 May 1998 finding him guilty. The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty on 14 May 1998 debarring him from departmental promotion for three years and directing recovery of ₹2,000 in ten instalments.

The reviewing authority subsequently issued a show-cause notice proposing enhancement of the penalty and, on 21 January 1999, removed the applicant from service. His appeal was rejected. The applicant challenged the orders in O.A. No. 57/2000, which was allowed by the Tribunal on 30 August 2001. The respondents’ writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on 8 April 2013.

Thereafter, the competent authority issued another show-cause notice dated 9 January 2014. The applicant submitted his representation, but the reviewing authority passed an order dated 9 September 2014 removing him from service. His appeal was rejected on 11 August 2017.

During the pendency of the present O.A., the applicant died and his legal heirs were substituted on 30 July 2024.

Whether the reviewing authority’s show-cause notice was legally defective because it recorded a final or predetermined conclusion that the applicant should be removed from service, instead of providing only tentative reasons for disagreement or enhancement of penalty?

Whether the orders dated 9 September 2014 and 11 August 2017 removing the applicant from service were liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice?

Whether the applicant was entitled to reinstatement and consequential benefits notwithstanding that he had not actually worked during the relevant period?

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice governing disciplinary and reviewing proceedings.

Relying principally on Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84, it held that where the disciplinary or reviewing authority disagrees with the Inquiry Officer or proposes an enhanced penalty, it must first record only tentative reasons for such disagreement and provide the delinquent employee a meaningful opportunity to submit a representation before recording its final findings.

The Tribunal also proceeded under the powers relating to enhancement of punishment under Rule 19 of the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, as referred to in the disagreement note.

The original penalty imposed on 14 May 1998 remained operative unless lawfully modified.

The Tribunal examined the show-cause/disagreement note dated 9 January 2014 and found that the reviewing authority had expressly concluded that charges 1, 3 and 4 were fully proved, charge 2 was partly proved, the applicant’s integrity was doubtful, and removal from service was the appropriate punishment.

Although the respondents relied on the use of the word “tentatively,” the substance of the notice demonstrated that the authority had already reached a concluded view that the applicant ought to be removed. This deprived the applicant of a genuine opportunity to persuade the authority before its final decision, contrary to the rule in Kunj Behari Misra, which requires tentative reasons and consideration of the employee’s representation before final findings are recorded.

The defect therefore went to the decision-making process and violated natural justice, rendering the enhanced punishment order and appellate order unsustainable.

The applicant was directed to be deemed in service from the date of his removal, but without pay and allowances for the period he had not worked, on the principle of “no work, no pay.”

The earlier penalty dated 14 May 1998—debarment from departmental promotion for three years along with recovery of ₹2,000—was directed to continue.

As the applicant had died, the respondents were directed to release all admissible retiral dues to the applicant’s legal heirs in accordance with the rules within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

There was no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.