Disciplinary proceedings for strike participation are unsustainable absent specific allegations of incitement, violence, or sabotage.

The applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) working as an Acting Branch Postmaster (BPM), challenged a charge memo dated 22.12.2023 issued under Rule 10B (major penalties) of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020.

The charges alleged that the applicant remained unauthorizedly absent from 12.12.2023 to 15.12.2023 during a strike, despite departmental instructions prohibiting leave during that period.

It was further alleged that the applicant disobeyed superior orders to report to duty—communicated via WhatsApp and email—and instigated other GDS employees to participate in the strike through social media and rallies.

The Tribunal noted that this matter was identical to a batch of cases (O.A. No. 260/00100/2024 and others) previously decided by the same Bench.

1. Whether the initiation of major penalty proceedings for strike participation is legally sustainable under Rule 23 of the GDS Rules, 2020, in the absence of specific allegations of incitement, violence, or sabotage.

2. Whether charges involving "instigation" via social media and "arranging rallies" are sustainable when they lack specific details, names, and documentary evidence.

The Tribunal primarily applied Rule 23 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, which dictates that while strike periods result in TRCA (salary) deduction, disciplinary action requires proof of incitement, violence, or sabotage.

It relied on the definition of "misconduct" from State of Punjab v. Ram Singh, emphasizing that it must involve willful transgression or forbidden acts.

The Tribunal applied the principles from Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, holding that disciplinary charges must be clear and specific to avoid being vitiated.

Furthermore, it invoked the legal maxims sublato fundamento cadit opus (when the foundation is removed, the superstructure falls) and quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum (one cannot do indirectly what is forbidden directly).

The Tribunal found that the charge sheet failed to satisfy the legal prerequisites for disciplinary action under Rule 23, as there were no allegations that the applicant resorted to violence, sabotage, or obstruction of willing employees.

The court observed that the allegations regarding "instigation" via social media were "absolutely vague and indefinite" because the respondents failed to identify which employees were instigated or provide copies of the alleged communications.

It reasoned that since the department had already deducted salary for the strike period, initiating major penalty proceedings for the same absence amounted to an improper "post-decisional hearing" and "harassment".

The Tribunal emphasized that a strike for service grievances is a recognized legal right, and in the absence of specific evidence showing a refusal to hand over office equipment to an authorized person, the charges were based on mere "conjecture and surmises".

The Tribunal allowed the O.A., quashed the impugned charge memo dated 22.12.2023, and annulled the subsequent appointment of inquiry and presenting officers.

No costs were awarded.