Tribunal mandates expedited issuance of charge-sheet following order of put off duty against GDS employee.

The applicant, Smt. Sarita Singh, a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master (GDSBPM) at Harpur Mafi Lekha Karyalaya, Kushinagar, challenged an impugned order dated 09.01.2026 issued by respondent no. 3.

This order placed the applicant under "put off duty" following allegations of financial irregularities related to deposit transactions.

The applicant contended that the order was issued without notice or a hearing, violating natural justice, and alleged that the transactions were performed by her husband without her knowledge.

She further argued that no charge-sheet had been served despite the lapse of over three months since the suspension.

1. Whether the "put off duty" order dated 09.01.2026 was vitiated by procedural irregularities and a lack of timely disciplinary action.

2. Whether the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction to direct the competent authority to expedite the contemplated disciplinary proceedings.

Rule 12 of the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020, which grants the competent authority the power to place a Gramin Dak Sevak under "put off duty" when disciplinary proceedings are contemplated.

The Tribunal also considered the administrative law principles of natural justice and the requirement for the timely issuance of a charge-sheet to prevent indefinite suspension.

The Tribunal analyzed the applicant’s claim that the impugned order was arbitrary due to the absence of a preliminary inquiry and the failure to serve a charge-sheet within a reasonable timeframe.

While the respondents sought time to file a formal reply, they agreed to a time-bound direction for the competent authority to decide the matter.

The Tribunal found that keeping the Original Application pending was unnecessary; instead, the law required the respondents to formalize the allegations through a charge-sheet to allow the disciplinary process to proceed or conclude.

By directing a six-week deadline, the Tribunal aimed to balance the administration's power to investigate misconduct with the employee's right to a prompt resolution.

It held that the competent authority must consider the applicant’s grievance and proceed with the contemplated disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge-sheet—if not already issued—within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

No order as to costs was made.