Dismissal for proved negligence was disproportionate; authority directed to impose a lesser major penalty.

The applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer/Mail Carrier at Rakhalbasti Branch Office, was issued a show-cause notice dated 29 October 2018 alleging absence from duty, failure to open the Branch Office, non-response to the Inspector’s calls, and irregular handling of Speed Post articles.

A charge memorandum dated 29 November 2018 was thereafter issued under Rule 10 of the Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.

The applicant denied the charges in his written statement dated 17 December 2018.

Following a departmental inquiry, in which four prosecution witnesses were examined and no defence witness was produced, the charges were held proved.

The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from engagement by order dated 9 January 2020, and the Appellate Authority upheld the penalty on 11 May 2021.

The applicant challenged the show-cause notice, charge memorandum, inquiry report, penalty order, and appellate order under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the findings against the applicant were vitiated by procedural irregularities, violation of natural justice, reliance on unproved documents, or consideration of irrelevant material?

2. Whether the penalty of dismissal from engagement was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and proved against the applicant?

3. Whether the Tribunal could interfere with the disciplinary orders within the limited scope of judicial review applicable to departmental proceedings?

The Tribunal proceeded under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and considered the disciplinary framework under Rules 10 and 21 of the Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, concerning initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the obligation to maintain integrity and devotion to duty.

Relying on Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, it held that judicial review does not permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of the disciplinary authority’s factual conclusions, but permits interference where the inquiry is incompetent, procedurally unlawful, contrary to natural justice, based on extraneous considerations, wholly arbitrary, or unsupported by evidence.

Applying Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 3 SCC 73, the Tribunal held that punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct and that an excessively stringent punishment for a comparatively lesser offence is legally impermissible.

The applicant also relied on Yunus Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 539, concerning the requirement that charges be proved by the department, and Ministry of Finance v. S.B. Ramesh, (1998) 3 SCC 227, concerning reliance on unproved documentary material; however, the final determination principally rested on proportionality.

The Tribunal noted the applicant’s objections regarding the alleged use of unproved documents, statements allegedly obtained by force, non-examination of relevant witnesses, and the alleged predisposition of the disciplinary authority.

Nevertheless, it did not undertake a fresh assessment of the evidence, consistent with the restricted judicial-review standard in P. Gunasekaran.

Instead, it focused on the nature of the misconduct established against the applicant—principally negligence in duty and irregular handling of one Speed Post article—and held that the misconduct could not be treated as a serious offence warranting the extreme penalty of dismissal from engagement.

Applying the proportionality principle in Rajendra Yadav, the Tribunal concluded that, even if disciplinary action was justified, the authorities ought to have imposed a lesser major penalty rather than dismissal.

It accordingly allowed the O.A. and quashed the charge memorandum, inquiry report, penalty order, and appellate order, namely Annexures A/2 to A/5.

The matter was remanded to the Appellate/Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the punishment and impose any other major penalty except removal from service.

The applicant was held not entitled to back wages for the period of termination under the principle of “no work, no pay,” although seniority was to be preserved if the punishment was reduced.

The pending miscellaneous application, if any, was disposed of, with no order as to costs.