Admitted GDS misconduct followed by due process warrants compulsory discharge without a de novo inquiry.

The applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster, was placed off duty in March/April 2019 following allegations concerning non-credit of RPLI premiums and delayed/non-accounting of savings-bank deposits.

Verification disclosed alleged fraud of ₹14,845, comprising temporary misappropriation of ₹10,789 and permanent misappropriation of ₹4,065.

A charge memorandum dated 11 September 2020 was issued under Rule 10B of the Department of Posts, GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, alleging failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty under Rule 21(i) and (ii).

Although the applicant initially denied the allegations, the respondents asserted that he admitted the charges in his written statement and unconditionally admitted them during the inquiry held on 21 October 2020.

The Inquiry Officer consequently found the charges proved.

After furnishing the inquiry report and considering the applicant’s representation, the disciplinary authority compulsorily discharged him from engagement with monetary benefits proportionate to his service.

His appeal and revision were rejected.

He therefore challenged the disciplinary, appellate and revisional orders and sought a fresh inquiry and reinstatement.

Whether the disciplinary authorities validly proceeded against the applicant and imposed the penalty of compulsory discharge despite his alleged admission of the charges and the contents of his subsequent representation denying misconduct.

Whether the applicant was entitled to a de novo inquiry and reinstatement on the ground that the inquiry was improperly concluded on the basis of his admission.

Whether the disciplinary, appellate and revisional orders required interference by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal applied Rule 10B of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, governing disciplinary proceedings for major penalties, and Rule 21(i) and (ii), requiring maintenance of absolute integrity and devotion to duty.

It specifically relied on Rule 10-D, which provides that an inquiry must ordinarily be conducted where a major penalty is proposed even if the GDS accepts the charges, primarily to afford an adequate opportunity of defence; however, where the charges are accepted unconditionally, no further inquiry is necessary for imposing a major penalty.

The Tribunal also considered the authorities cited by both sides, including State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash Singh, Civil Appeal No. 14724/2024, and the decisions relied upon by the applicant, but found the applicant’s cited decisions inapplicable to the present facts.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had admitted the charges in his written statement and had made an unconditional and categorical admission during the preliminary inquiry on 21 October 2020.

Although the applicant later disputed the allegations in his representation, he substantially acknowledged the lapses relating to delayed credit of RPLI premiums and non-accounting of the ₹500 deposit, and pleaded guilty to those lapses.

The disciplinary authority independently examined his explanation, found that the RPLI premiums had been entered and authenticated in the relevant records but were not credited to the Post Office accounts, and held that the ₹500 deposit ought to have been accounted for in the UCR even if the voucher had been misplaced.

Since the inquiry had been conducted and the applicant had been given an opportunity to represent against the inquiry report, the Tribunal held that the procedure complied with Rule 10-D and that no de novo inquiry was warranted.

It further observed that the appellate and revisional authorities had duly considered and rejected the applicant’s challenges, and found no ground for judicial interference with the penalty.

The prayer for a de novo inquiry, reinstatement and consequential relief was rejected.

The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit; consequently, no order was passed on the connected Miscellaneous Application, and there was no order as to costs.