Initial challenge to charge sheet becomes infructuous upon final punishment order.

The applicant, a GDS employee of the Postal Department, appeared in a competitive examination on 27.11.2011 for the Postman position, the results of which were published on 23.05.2013.

His selection was stipulated to be subject to satisfactory verification of service records and clearance of vigilance/disciplinary cases.

Prior to his appointment, a charge sheet under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 was issued against him on 06.02.2013.

The applicant challenged aspects of these disciplinary proceedings in previous OAs (OA No. 378/2013 and OA No. 548/2013).

In OA No. 548/2013, the punishment of removal from service dated 31.12.2014 was quashed, and the matter was remitted back for a fresh order.

Consequently, on 10.08.2020, a de novo inquiry was ordered.

The applicant filed the present OA challenging the charge sheet dated 06.02.2013 and the de novo inquiry order dated 10.08.2020, also praying for appointment as Postman from the date other candidates were posted.

While the OA was pending, the disciplinary proceedings concluded with the imposition of a "Censure" punishment on 19.03.2024.

The applicant had not challenged this final punishment order in the present OA.

The applicant also filed MA No. 399/2025 seeking immediate promotion to Postman and consequential benefits.

1. Whether the Original Application challenging the charge sheet and the de novo inquiry order remained maintainable after the disciplinary proceedings concluded with a final punishment order?

2. Whether the applicant's prayer for promotion could be granted given the imposition of "Censure" and the absence of a challenge to the final punishment order?

The court applied the principle that if an Original Application (OA) is filed against an interim stage of disciplinary proceedings (e.g., charge sheet), but a final punishment order is subsequently passed, the applicant must amend the OA to challenge the new final order.

Failure to do so renders the initial OA infructuous.

The court also referred to the decision in *Union Of India & Ors vs A.N.Mohanan, 2007 AIR SCW 2773*, which interpreted Rule 3.1 of the Office Memorandum dated 14.9.1992 regarding the effect of "Censure" on promotion, stating that a penalty of censure is a blameworthy factor and may affect promotion eligibility.

The court noted that the applicant's challenge in the OA was specifically directed at the charge sheet dated 06.02.2013 and the de novo inquiry order dated 10.08.2020.

However, during the pendency of the OA, the disciplinary proceedings concluded, resulting in the imposition of a "Censure" punishment on 19.03.2024.

The court reasoned that the passing of this final order completely superseded the original cause of action, making the initial challenge in the OA to the charge sheet and interim inquiry order infructuous.

The applicant failed to amend the OA to challenge this final punishment order, which is a prerequisite for its continued maintainability.

Thus, the court concluded that the OA lacked a subject matter to decide.

Regarding the prayer for promotion, the court noted that "Censure" is a recognized punishment and, citing *Union Of India & Ors vs A.N.Mohanan*, found it to be a blameworthy factor impacting promotion considerations.

The respondents also stated there was no vacancy available or reserved for the applicant.

The court held that the OA became infructuous because a final order of "Censure" punishment dated 19.03.2024 had been passed, and the applicant failed to challenge this final order by amending the OA.

Consequently, the MA, which sought promotion, also stood dismissed.

Each party was directed to bear their own costs.