Unauthorized Prolonged Absence and Non-Disclosure of Criminal Cases Involving Moral Turpitude Justify Removal from GDS Engagement

The applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) Branch Postmaster since 1988, was granted leave without pay until 30.06.2016.

He failed to resume duty on 01.07.2016, leading to a charge sheet alleging unauthorized absence and failure to intimate the department regarding his involvement in an FIR (No. 90/2016) involving allegations of cheating and forgery.

Following a regular inquiry under Rule 10 of the GDS (Conduct Engagement) Rules, 2011, the Inquiry Officer found the charges proved.

Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from engagement on 30.08.2017.

The applicant's subsequent appeal and revision petition were rejected.

The applicant challenged these orders, contending that his absence was due to illness and that the criminal case (later quashed per compromise) was private in nature.

1. Whether the applicant's absence from duty effective 01.07.2016 constituted unauthorized absence justifying disciplinary action

2. Whether the applicant's failure to disclose his arrest and the registration of a criminal FIR amounted to misconduct

3. Whether the penalty of removal from engagement was disproportionate or shocks the conscience of the Tribunal

Rule 10 of the GDS (Conduct Engagement) Rules, 2011, which governs disciplinary procedures and penalties for GDS employees.

Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610, which restricts a Tribunal's power to re-appreciate evidence or interfere with the quantum of punishment unless the findings are perverse or the penalty shocks the conscience.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant failed to provide evidence of sanctioned leave beyond 30.06.2016; his medical certificates were submitted belatedly and were never approved by the competent authority.

The Tribunal rejected the plea that he was barred from joining, noting the absence of contemporaneous records.

Regarding the criminal charge, the Tribunal held that even though the High Court quashed the FIR based on a compromise, the applicant’s failure to intimate the department about his judicial custody (23.12.2016 to 09.01.2017) at the relevant time constituted a suppression of material facts.

The court reasoned that as a GDS BPM holding a position of public trust, the applicant was required to maintain high integrity.

The inquiry followed due process, and the non-consideration of belated medical certificates did not vitiate the proceedings as mere submission does not equate to authorized leave.

The Tribunal concluded that the penalty of removal from engagement was not disproportionate, especially since it did not disqualify him from future employment. The Original Application was dismissed, and the orders of the Disciplinary, Appellate, and Revisional Authorities were upheld.