Disciplinary appeal remedy must be exhausted before Tribunal intervenes in factual and legal disputes.

The applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster, was served with a charge sheet alleging financial embezzlement and subsequently found guilty by the enquiry officer.

She was placed under put-off duty effective from November 6, 2012.

Due to the delay in concluding the enquiry and her continued put-off duty, she approached the Tribunal and obtained Annexure-A3 order directing her reinstatement.

When this order was not complied with, she filed a Contempt Petition, leading to her reinstatement.

During the pendency of the O.A., punishment was imposed on her without the Tribunal's leave.

The applicant alleges the proceedings are vitiated, citing bias from the then Superintendent of Post Office, who she claims had a grudge against her for demanding rent for the building where the Post Office was located.

She further stated that she had filed three bias petitions during the enquiry which were not considered.

1. Whether the imposition of a penalty on the applicant during the pendency of the Original Application, without obtaining leave of the Tribunal, violates statutory mandate.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the Original Application without exhausting statutory appellate remedies available under the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020.

The Tribunal considered Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, which mandates obtaining leave of the Tribunal before imposing a penalty during the pendency of an application.

It also referred to the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, which provide for statutory remedies to prefer an appeal against the disciplinary authority's decision.

The Tribunal noted that a penalty had been imposed on the applicant during the pendency of the O.A. without honouring the statutory mandate under Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

However, it also observed that the applicant had not availed the statutory remedy of preferring an appeal against the disciplinary authority's order as provided for under the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020.

The Tribunal stated that it would be premature to delve into the various questions of law and facts raised, especially since most arguments pertained to factual matters to be considered by statutory authorities.

Given that the penalty had not been operated due to an interim order and the applicant had not filed an appeal, coupled with only a few months remaining before her retirement, the Tribunal decided not to adjudicate on the merits.

The applicant was granted liberty to file a detailed appeal before the appellate authority within sixty days, enumerating all possible grounds challenging the proceedings.

The appellate authority was directed to consider and dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

The interim order was directed to continue until the appeal is decided.

The Original Application was disposed of accordingly, with no costs.