Admission of a Tribunal application abates pending departmental appeals under Section 19(4).

The applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster, was charged with cash shortage and receiving money for an RD account that was not opened.

After an inquiry officer found both charges not proved, the disciplinary authority imposed dismissal from engagement on 9 February 2022.

The applicant’s departmental appeal remained pending when the Tribunal admitted his challenge to the penalty order on 1 March 2023.

During the Tribunal proceedings, the appellate authority set aside the penalty and directed a de novo inquiry; the department then issued further inquiry-related and put-off-duty communications.

1. Whether the appellate authority could decide the pending departmental appeal after the Tribunal had admitted the applicant’s challenge to the penalty order.

2. Whether the penalty order was procedurally sustainable in light of the competent authority’s direction to reconsider the matter from the stage of examination of the inquiry officer’s report.

Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides that, once the Tribunal admits an application, pending proceedings under the relevant service rules concerning the same subject matter abate and, absent a contrary direction by the Tribunal, no further appeal or representation concerning that matter may be entertained.

The Tribunal also applied the requirement that disciplinary action under the applicable Gramin Dak Sevak rules comply with directions of the competent authority and follow the prescribed procedure.

The applicant relied on K.R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, 1971 (2) SCC 102, concerning the limits on holding a further inquiry; however, the Tribunal did not decide that contention or the merits of the charges.

The departmental appeal was pending when the Tribunal admitted O.A. No. 31/2023. Under Section 19(4), the appellate authority could not thereafter decide that appeal without the Tribunal’s direction; no such direction had been sought or granted, so its order was set aside for want of jurisdiction.

Separately, the record showed that the competent authority had directed the ad hoc disciplinary authority to proceed from the stage of examining the inquiry officer’s report, including the agreement or disagreement note. The ad hoc authority instead finalized the case and imposed dismissal two days later, without following that direction.

The Tribunal therefore found a procedural infirmity warranting the penalty order’s quashing and remand, without expressing any view on the charges’ merits.

O.A. No. 31/2023 was disposed of by setting aside the penalty order and remitting the matter to the competent disciplinary authority to recommence the decision-making process from the stage at which the procedural defect occurred, in accordance with the applicable rules and within three months of receiving the order.

Consequential monetary and service or engagement benefits were to abide by the disciplinary outcome and applicable rules; the Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the charges and made no order as to costs.