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

The applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master (GDSBPM), challenged a charge memo dated 21.12.2023 issued under Rule 10B of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020

The memo alleged that the applicant remained unauthorizedly absent from 12.12.2023 to 15.12.2023 during a period of a proposed strike, despite instructions not to grant leave

It was further alleged that he failed to report for duty after receiving communications via WhatsApp and email, and that he instigated other employees to participate in the strike through social media and rallies

The applicant sought to quash the disciplinary proceedings, arguing that the charges were similar to those in a batch of cases previously decided by the Tribunal

1. Whether the initiation of major penalty proceedings for participating in a strike is sustainable under Rule 23 of the GDS Rules, 2020 in the absence of evidence regarding incitement, violence, or sabotage.

2. Whether the charges regarding instigation and failure to hand over office property were sufficiently specific to satisfy the requirements of natural justice and fair play.

Rule 23 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, which stipulates that while strikes result in TRCA (Salary) deductions, disciplinary action and "break in engagement" are conditional upon the presence of "incitement, violence and sabotage"

The definition of "misconduct" as willful, unlawful behavior established in State of Punjab v. Ram Singh

Principles from Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, which established that charges must be clear and specific, not vague or indefinite, to ensure a fair trial

The Tribunal observed that Rule 23 requires a specific precondition of incitement, violence, or sabotage for disciplinary proceedings to be valid during a strike; however, the charge sheet contained no such specific allegations

The court found the allegations that the applicant "instigated" others through social media to be "absolutely vague and indefinite" because the respondents failed to identify which employees were moved to strike or provide records of specific social media posts

The claim that the applicant caused dislocation by not handing over office keys was dismissed as there was no evidence of an authorized person attempting to receive them

The Tribunal noted that since the department had already deducted the applicant's salary for the absence, initiating a major penalty inquiry without specific evidence of sabotage amounted to "post-decisional hearing" and a violation of natural justice

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application, quashed the charge sheet dated 21.12.2023, and annulled the appointments of Inquiry and Presenting Officers