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

The applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (GDSBPM), challenged a charge memo issued on 22.12.2023 under Rule 10B (major penalties) of the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020

The allegations included unauthorized absence from 12.12.2023 to 15.12.2023 during a strike, failure to report for duty despite instructions sent via WhatsApp and email, and instigating other employees to participate in the strike through social media

The applicant contended that the charges were unsustainable based on a common order passed by the same Tribunal in similar matters (O.A. No. 260/00100 of 2024 and others) on 17.11.2025

1. Whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings for a major penalty under Rule 10B is legally sustainable in the absence of allegations involving incitement, violence, or sabotage during a strike as per Rule 23.

2. Whether the charges of "instigation" and "arranging rallies" via social media were sufficiently specific to sustain a domestic inquiry.

3. Whether the department can initiate disciplinary action after already applying the principle of "no work, no pay" (deducting TRCA) for the strike period.

Rule 23 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, which stipulates that while the strike period results in a deduction of TRCA, further disciplinary action requires specific instances of incitement, violence, or sabotage

Definition of "misconduct" from State of Punjab v. Ram Singh (1992)

Procedural requirement that "if law requires something to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner," citing Krishna Rai v. Banaras Hindu University (2022)

Principle from Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (2011) that charges in a domestic inquiry must be clear, definite, and specific, rather than vague or based on conjectures

The Tribunal observed that Rule 23 explicitly conditions disciplinary action beyond TRCA deduction on "incitement, violence, and sabotage"

Upon reviewing the charge sheet, the Tribunal found no such specific allegations

The claim that the applicant "instigated" others through social media was deemed "absolutely vague and indefinite" because the respondents failed to identify the specific GDS employees allegedly instigated or provide documentation of the social media communications

The Tribunal noted that participation in a strike to demand better service conditions is a legal right (though not fundamental) and does not inherently constitute misconduct unless coupled with forbidden acts

The Tribunal held that since the department already deducted salary for the strike period, initiating major penalty proceedings without meeting the "sabotage" threshold amounted to an improper "post-decisional hearing" and placed an unnecessary "sword of Damocles" over the applicant

The Tribunal quashed the charge sheet dated 22.12.2023 and annulled the appointment of Inquiry Officers (IO) and Presenting Officers (PO)

The Original Application was allowed with no orders as to costs