Suspension period was directed to be regularised with full salary after adjusting subsistence allowance.

The applicant, a Postal Assistant in the Agartala Head Post Office, was suspended from 18 January 2021 and subsequently issued a charge memorandum dated 29 September 2021 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

The charge alleged that, on 7 September 2020, he handed over one sheet of commemorative postage stamps relating to P.V. Narasimha Rao to the official in charge of the Philately Bureau without verifying the stamps’ date of release.

An Inquiry Officer was appointed on 15 November 2021 and submitted the inquiry report on 14 March 2023, finding the charge proved with contributory negligence.

On the basis of the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for three months without cumulative effect.

His departmental appeal dated 2 June 2023 remained pending when the Original Application was heard.

Whether the charge memorandum, inquiry report, and penalty order were liable to be quashed on account of alleged procedural irregularities, including non-proof of documents, violation of Rule 14(18), and delay in completion of the inquiry?

Whether the applicant’s suspension period from 18 January 2021 to 4 January 2023 should be regularised and treated as duty, with payment of full pay and allowances after adjustment of subsistence allowance?

Whether the respondents’ failure to decide the applicant’s departmental appeal required a direction for its expeditious disposal?

The proceedings were governed principally by Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which prescribes the procedure for major-penalty disciplinary inquiries, including the obligation under Rule 14(18) to afford the charged employee an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him.

Rule 14(24), along with the Department of Personnel and Training guidelines, requires disciplinary inquiries to be completed expeditiously, although the judgment does not treat the prescribed period as automatically nullifying the proceedings.

The applicant relied on the principles in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, and Ministry of Finance v. S.B. Ramesh, (1998) 3 SCC 227, concerning proof and consideration of evidence in disciplinary proceedings, and on Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi, (2015) 16 SCC 415, concerning undue delay in disciplinary proceedings.

The respondents relied on the alleged breach of the Handbook of Philately and Rule 58 of the P&T Financial Handbook, read with Rules 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which require devotion to duty and prohibit conduct unbecoming of a government servant.

The treatment of the suspension period was considered in the context of the applicable service rules and the DOPT Office Memorandum dated 3 December 1985.

The Tribunal recorded that the applicant had remained under suspension for approximately two years, that the suspension had subsequently been revoked, and that only a minor penalty had ultimately been imposed despite initiation of proceedings under a major-penalty charge memorandum.

Without expressly quashing the charge memorandum, inquiry report, or penalty order, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to direct regularisation of the suspension period and payment of salary after adjustment of the subsistence allowance already paid.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant’s departmental appeal remained pending and directed the competent Appellate Authority to decide it within the same period.

Thus, the relief granted was based primarily on the prolonged suspension and the pending departmental remedy, rather than on a definitive finding that the inquiry was legally void or that the charges were unproved.

The respondents were directed to regularise the applicant’s suspension period from 18 January 2021 to 4 January 2023 and release the consequential salary after deducting or adjusting the subsistence allowance already paid, within three months from receipt of the order.

The competent Appellate Authority was further directed to decide the applicant’s pending appeal dated 2 June 2023 within the same three-month period.

No order as to costs was made, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.