Charge-sheets cannot be quashed unless issued without jurisdiction or where the allegations disclose no misconduct.

The applicant, originally an Assistant Branch Post Master (ABPM) in Madhya Pradesh, was selected as a Branch Post Master (BPM) in Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh.

He joined the new post on 13.11.2024 after resigning from his previous position.

Subsequently, the respondents issued a charge sheet dated 13.02.2025 for unauthorized absence and later placed him "off duty" (suspended) via order dated 15.01.2026.

The respondents contended that the applicant’s resignation in Madhya Pradesh was not accepted, he was removed from service there on 18.10.2024, and he concealed this fact during his appointment in Uttar Pradesh.

The respondents further stated that the original charge sheet was withdrawn and a fresh one was issued on 02.01.2026.

The applicant challenged the charge sheet and suspension, alleging bias and non-payment of subsistence allowance.

1. Whether the Tribunal can interfere with the impugned charge sheet dated 13.02.2025 or the subsequent "put off duty" order?

2. Whether the allegation of personal bias and mala fides against the respondent is sustainable without impleading the concerned official by name?

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to ex-gratia compensation during the period he is "put off duty"?

Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, specifically Rule 12, which empowers authorities to "put off duty" a Sevak pending disciplinary proceedings.

Rule 13, which provides a statutory right of appeal against such orders.

Regarding judicial interference in charge sheets, the court relied on Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2007), which establishes that a charge sheet does not infringe rights and should only be quashed in rare cases of total lack of jurisdiction.

On the issue of mala fides, the court applied the principle from Ratnagiri Gas Power Ltd. v. RDS Projects Ltd. (2012), requiring a high degree of proof and the mandatory impleadment of the individual against whom bias is alleged.

The Tribunal observed that the challenge to the charge sheet dated 13.02.2025 was infructuous because it had been withdrawn and replaced by a fresh notice.

Following Kunisetty Satyanarayana, the Tribunal held that it cannot adjudicate the truth of charges at the framing stage unless the authority lacks jurisdiction.

Regarding the "put off duty" order, the Tribunal found it valid under Rule 12(1) as disciplinary action was contemplated.

The Tribunal noted the applicant failed to exhaust the alternative remedy of appeal under Rule 13(1).

Furthermore, the plea of bias was rejected because the applicant failed to implead the respondent in an individual capacity, a procedural requirement for claims of mala fides.

The Tribunal found the respondents’ excuse for non-payment of ex-gratia compensation (non-generation of ID) "not convincing," noting that as the appointing authority, they should possess the necessary data to facilitate payment under Rule 12(3).

Relief against the "put off duty" order was denied, but the applicant was granted liberty to file a statutory appeal under Rule 13(1) within two weeks, which the competent authority must decide on merits within two months.

The respondents were ordered to pay the mandatory 25% TRCA as ex-gratia compensation for the "put off duty" period within one month of the order.

Parties were ordered to bear their own costs.