Reinstatement may be deferred until acquittal where a GDS employee faces trial for a heinous criminal offence.

The applicant, a GDS Branch Postmaster at Khopenikuchi Branch Post Office, had served in that post since 01.04.1999. He was arrested on 03.12.2020 in connection with Hajo P.S. Case No. 705/2020, registered under Sections 143, 365 and 302 IPC, and was thereafter placed on put-off duty by order dated 16.12.2020.

The applicant asserted that he was granted default bail after the police failed to submit a charge-sheet within the statutory period and sought reinstatement, along with ex-gratia/subsistence payments.

The applicant had earlier filed O.A. No. 040/0297/2023, which was disposed of on 06.03.2024 with a direction to the respondents to consider his representations seeking reinstatement and payment.

The respondents paid ex-gratia compensation up to 31.03.2024 but rejected reinstatement through a speaking order dated 24.04.2024.

The respondents subsequently stated that the criminal case was pending trial and that the admissible ex-gratia payment had been sanctioned and enhanced to 50% of the last-drawn compensation.

Whether the applicant was entitled to reinstatement as GDS Branch Postmaster merely because he had remained on put-off duty for more than 90 days and had not been reinstated during the pendency of the criminal case?

Whether the applicant was entitled to continued ex-gratia/subsistence payment and other consequential reliefs during the pendency of the criminal proceedings?

Whether the respondents’ decision to continue the applicant on put-off duty until the conclusion of the criminal case was legally sustainable?

The respondents relied on Rule 12(1)(b) of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, under which a GDS employee may be placed on put-off duty in circumstances involving detention or criminal proceedings.

The Department of Posts’ instructions issued under Rule 12 through Letter No. 294/90-E.I Trg. dated 26.07.1990 contemplate put-off duty where a GDS employee is involved in a criminal charge involving moral turpitude and permit continuation during custody, imprisonment or release on bail, while also requiring disciplinary proceedings to be concluded expeditiously.

The applicant relied on Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, for the principle that suspension should ordinarily not continue beyond three months without service of a charge-sheet and a reasoned order extending suspension.

The Tribunal, however, treated the present matter as involving a pending criminal prosecution for a serious offence, in which the charge-sheet had been filed and trial was continuing, and held that reinstatement could not be directed at that stage.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s criminal case under Sections 143, 365 and 302 IPC was pending before the competent criminal court and that, according to the respondents, the charge-sheet had been filed and the trial was ongoing.

Although the applicant relied on the 90-day principle concerning continuation of suspension or put-off duty, the Tribunal considered the pendency of the criminal trial and the seriousness of the allegations to be decisive.

It further noted that the respondents had already considered the applicant’s representations and passed a speaking order dated 24.04.2024, which had not been specifically challenged in the present application.

Accordingly, the Tribunal declined to order reinstatement while the criminal prosecution remained pending, but preserved the applicant’s claim for consideration after the criminal court’s decision.

It directed that if the applicant is acquitted by the trial court, the respondents shall consider his reinstatement within 30 days from the date of the trial court’s order.

The Original Application was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.