Refusal to furnish a charge memo in the employee’s regional language violates natural justice.

The applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak and Branch Postmaster at Thandampalayam Branch Post Office, had approximately 41 years of service.

He was placed under “put off duty” with effect from 25 June 2016 in connection with a preliminary enquiry into alleged fraud at Sivagiri Post Office.

A charge memo dated 2 June 2017 was issued to him under Rule 10 of the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011, containing two articles of charge.

Since the charge memo was issued in English, the applicant repeatedly requested that it, and the relevant correspondence, be furnished in Tamil, relying on D.G. P&T Letter No. 58-46/77-CI dated 16 February 1978, which contemplated the use of the regional language in communications concerning GDS officials.

The departmental authorities rejected the request, stating that the Inquiry Officer would explain the charges orally in Tamil during the enquiry; the Appellate Authority also rejected the request, relying on Rule 70 of the Postal Manual, Volume III.

The applicant contended that the enquiry was thereafter proceeded with ex parte on 10 and 11 April 2018, depriving him of an effective opportunity to understand and defend the charges.

Whether refusal to furnish the charge memo and relevant disciplinary correspondence in Tamil, despite repeated requests by the applicant, violated the principles of natural justice and his right to a reasonable and effective opportunity of defence?

Whether the respondents could rely on Rule 70 of the Postal Manual, Volume III, while dealing with a GDS official governed by the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011?

Whether the disciplinary proceedings and consequential orders were liable to be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration after furnishing the necessary documents in Tamil?

The Tribunal applied Rule 10 of the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011, under which disciplinary charges were framed against the applicant.

It considered D.G. P&T Letter No. 58-46/77-CI dated 16 February 1978, which directed, as far as practicable, the use of the regional language in instructions and correspondence relating to Extra-Departmental Agents/GDS officials.

The Tribunal also examined the respondents’ reliance on Rule 70 of the Postal Manual, Volume III, but accepted the applicant’s contention that the provision did not govern the language rights of a GDS official in the present disciplinary context.

Applying the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to reasonable notice and an effective opportunity to defend, the Tribunal relied on Mithilesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Others, Civil Appeal No. 4472 of 2013, decided on 1 May 2013, where the Supreme Court held that refusal to provide the charge memo and related correspondence in a language understood by the delinquent employee directly impaired the right of defence and vitiated the disciplinary process.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s repeated requests for the charge memo and relevant correspondence in Tamil were reasonable and intended to enable him to understand the allegations and participate effectively in the enquiry.

The respondents’ assurance that the Inquiry Officer would orally explain the charges in Tamil could not substitute for furnishing the foundational disciplinary documents in a language enabling the applicant to prepare his defence.

Since the applicant had specifically invoked the departmental instructions concerning regional-language communications and the enquiry was nevertheless proceeded with, including ex parte proceedings, the denial caused real prejudice rather than a merely technical irregularity.

Following the ratio of Mithilesh Kumar Singh, the Tribunal concluded that the refusal impaired the applicant’s effective right of defence and constituted a violation of natural justice.

The matter was remitted to the third respondent/Disciplinary Authority with directions to furnish the charge memo and other relevant documents in Tamil, permit the applicant to participate effectively, and thereafter proceed in accordance with law and decide whether any punishment was warranted after affording him a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing.

The disciplinary proceedings were directed to be completed within six months from receipt of the Tribunal’s order.

The OA was disposed of without costs.