Facts
The applicant, Sri. Dhanush V., a GDS-MC, challenged a charge sheet (Annexure – A11) dated 26.03.2025 and an order (Annexure – A9) dated 24.03.2025 issued to him on the ground of incompetency of the issuing authority.
Source reference: p.2, para.1The applicant was initially placed under "put-off duty" by an order dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure – A2), against which a departmental appeal was dismissed on 15.03.2023.
Source reference: p.7, para.7The applicant challenged these orders in OA No. 370/2023, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on 11.07.2024 (Annexure – A5).
Source reference: p.8, para.8During the pendency of this OA, a charge sheet dated 10.04.2024 was issued to the applicant.
Source reference: p.8, para.8The Tribunal's order was challenged before the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 22681/2024 (S-CAT).
Source reference: p.8, para.9The High Court, on 09.01.2025, directed the "Adhoc Disciplinary Authority" to apply its mind afresh to the charges and, if a misconduct was found, to issue a fresh charge sheet.
Source reference: p.9-10, para.10The applicant's counsel contended before the High Court that the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority must re-evaluate the necessity of issuing a charge sheet.
Source reference: p.9, para.6The Government counsel agreed that the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority would apply its mind afresh.
Source reference: p.9, para.7The original "Adhoc Disciplinary Authority," Sri A.B. Arun Kumar, Inspector Posts, Chintamani Sub-division, was appointed on 15.05.2024 (Annexure – A4) because the regular Disciplinary Authority, Sri P.L. Nagaraju, ASP Kolar Sub Division, was a material witness in the case.
Source reference: p.6, para.5The regular 'Appointing Authority' for the applicant, the Inspector Posts, Robertsonpet Sub-Division, had joined on 19.08.2024.
Source reference: p.11, para.12However, this fact was not brought to the attention of the High Court by either party when the High Court passed its order on 09.01.2025, which continued to direct the "Adhoc Disciplinary Authority".
Source reference: p.11-12, para.13In compliance with the High Court's order, the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority issued the fresh charge sheet (Annexure – A11).
Source reference: p.12, para.14Issues
Whether the charge sheet issued by the "Adhoc Disciplinary Authority" is invalid on the ground that the regular 'Appointing Authority' had already joined before its issuance?
Source reference: p.4, para.3Whether the applicant suffered any prejudice or manifest injustice due to the charge sheet being issued by the "Adhoc Disciplinary Authority" despite the regular authority joining?
Source reference: p.13, para.15Law Applied
Rule 9 of the GDS Rules 2011 (and 2020 GDS Rules) governs the imposition of penalties by the recruiting authority.
Source reference: p.4, para.2The principle that a disciplinary authority can be appointed if the normal authority is a material witness.
Source reference: p.6, para.5The doctrine of merger can clear situations of lack of jurisdiction at the initial level if appeals were pursued.
Source reference: p.13, para.15The court also considered the principle that interference in disciplinary proceedings is limited unless clear prejudice is shown.
Source reference: p.14, para.16P. Venugopalan, Vs. The Union of India and others, 2012 SCC OnLine Ker 6905 (D.B. of Kerala High Court, 27.03.2012) held that lack of initial jurisdiction, if not causing prejudice and addressed through appellate remedies, does not warrant interference.
Source reference: p.12-13, para.15Reasoning
The applicant primarily argued that the "Adhoc Appointing Authority" was incompetent to issue the charge sheet because the regular 'Appointing Authority' had been posted since 19.08.2024.
Source reference: p.4, para.3The original "Adhoc Disciplinary Authority" was appointed on 15.05.2024 because the regular authority was a material witness, and the order of appointment did not specify a limited duration.
Source reference: p.6-7, para.5-6The High Court, in its order dated 09.01.2025, specifically directed the "Adhoc Disciplinary Authority" to apply its mind afresh and, if warranted, issue a fresh charge sheet.
Source reference: p.10, para.10 & 13Neither party informed the High Court that the regular authority had joined on 19.08.2024 before the High Court's judgment.
Source reference: p.11-12, para.13The Tribunal found that the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority's appointment was for the "entire disciplinary proceedings".
Source reference: p.7, para.6Citing P. Venugopalan, the Tribunal emphasized that unless "any prejudice or manifest injustice" is caused, disciplinary proceedings should not be interfered with.
Source reference: p.13, para.15The Tribunal determined that no personal allegation was made against the Adhoc Authority, who was competent and not biased, and no prejudice was caused to the applicant, especially since the right to appeal was preserved.
Source reference: p.14, para.16The High Court's directives to the "Adhoc Disciplinary Authority" further reinforced its continued authority in the matter.
Source reference: p.14, para.16Holding
The OA was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the charge sheet issued by the "Adhoc Disciplinary Authority" was valid and competent, as its appointment was for the entire disciplinary proceedings and not time-bound.
Source reference: p.7, para.6; p.14, para.16Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by the issuance of the charge sheet by the Adhoc Authority, even after the regular authority had joined, especially considering the High Court had specifically directed the "Adhoc Disciplinary Authority" to act.
Source reference: p.14, para.16; p.15, para.17Both parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Source reference: p.15, para.17Original Court PDF
Dhanush V. v. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kolar Division, Kolar & Ors. OA.No.170/00204/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in