it2025_00888 — Tribunal may interfere in disciplinary proceedings only in very limited situations and circumstances like violation of proper procedure or when mala fides are urged

Tribunal may interfere in disciplinary proceedings only in very limited situations and circumstances like violation of proper procedure or when mala fides are urged — The chunk discusses a complaint alleging poor service by an Applicant, resulting in disciplinary proceedings due to her failure to respond to a charge-memo within stipulated time, leading to a reduct... — Facts: The Applicant, serving as Sub-Postmaster (SPM) at Habbuwada Post Office, a single-handed office, under Karwar Postal Division, was solely responsible for all Postal transactions. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Karwar Division, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide Memo No. KWR/F/MSN/2023, dated 29-3-2023. In response, the Applicant submitted a reply on 4-4-2023. Subsequently, by Memo, dated 9-6-2023, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for three years without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by this decision, the Applicant filed an appeal on 8-9-2023 before the Appellate Authority, the Director of Postal Services, North Karnataka Region, Dharwad. However, the Appellate Authority, by Memo No. NKR/VIG/Appeal/077/2023, dated 6-10-2023, rejected the appeal, leading the Applicant to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal for redressal. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant had an unblemished record throughout her career, with consistently good APAR gradings from 2016-17 to 2021-22 and no complaints in the previous 15 years. However, her APAR for 2022-23 was downgraded and her appeal against it was rejected by the Director of Postal Services, Dharwad. It is contended that the adverse remarks and subsequent disciplinary action were based on false and isolated complaints. On 25th October, 2022, while the Applicant was busy handling transactions at the single-handed Habbuwada Post Office, an advocate, Shri P.S. Bhat, became angry when asked to wait and lodged a false complaint. Another complaint, dated the 3rd February, 2023 alleging refusal to work was made. However, the same was reported to be due to network breakdown which was also confirmed by BSNL. Despite these circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority issued a charge-memo and imposed an arbitrary, illegal, and disproportionate penalty on the Applicant. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that on 25th October 2022, one Advocate, Shri P.S. Bhat, complained that the Applicant, then SPM at Habbuwada Post Office, refused to book his registered letter, citing jurisdictional reasons and remarking that staff at Karwar HO were idle. Another complaint dated 3rd February, 2023 alleged that the Applicant failed to provide services at the counter. Upon enquiry, she attributed the delay to network issues. However, field enquiries revealed no such problem and noted that several customers were waiting and many account-opening forms from a special drive were kept pending. Based on these findings, a charge-memo was issued and disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with rules and principles of natural justice were scrupulously followed. The Respondents, relying upon B.C. Chaturvedi's case [ (1995) 6 SCC 749 ] contended that the O.A. lacked merit and prayed for its dismissal.