it2025_00898 — Disagreement note issued by the Disciplinary Authority, which has to be tentative in nature was conclusive and final in nature and it was a post decisional document. Disagreement not quashed and set aside. Held that chance to reply to the disagreement note and hearing given to the Applicant is of no substance as the finding had already been arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority

IT Rules

Disagreement note issued by the Disciplinary Authority, which has to be tentative in nature was conclusive and final in nature and it was a post decisional document. Disagreement not quashed and set aside. Held that chance to reply to the disagreement note and hearing given to the Applicant is of no substance as the finding had already been arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority — The chunk pertains to the disciplinary action taken against an employee, who was initially charged, found not guilty, but then had his punishment revised. The Disciplinary Authority later issued a di... — Facts: The Applicant was initially appointed as Postal Assistant on 9-4-1983. Subsequently he was promoted as Inspector of Post Offices with effect from 19-8-1994 after qualifying in a competitive examination. In January, 2008, the Applicant was further promoted as Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices on ad hoc basis, but the promotion was not given effect to. Subsequently, the Applicant was promoted as Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices on regular basis on 27-5-2008 and this was also not given effect to. Thereafter, the Applicant was issued with a charge-memo, dated 6-6-2008 under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 containing two articles of charges. The Applicant denied the charges and therefore an inquiry was held. The inquiry Officer submitted his report on 12-6-2009 holding the Applicant not guilty of the charges levelled against him. Based on the report of the inquiry officer, the Disciplinary Authority, by Order, dated 12-1-2010 imposed the penalty of censure. Upon review, without issuing any show-cause notice, by impugned Order, dated 7-4-2010, the Reviewing Authority remitted the matter to the Disciplinary authority for issuing a self-contained reasoned and speaking order. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, without issuing any show-cause notice to the Applicant, revised the earlier order of punishment and issued a fresh punishment Order on 31-5-2010 imposing the punishment of reduction by three stages in pay band &#X20B9; 9,300 - 34,800 with G.P. &#X20B9; 4,200 from the stage of &#X20B9; 15,720 to &#X20B9; 14,020 for a period of next three years without cumulative effect with further directions that the Applicant will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction. On the appeal filed by the Applicant against the revised order of punishment, the Appellate Authority remanded the matter for de novo proceedings from the stage of receipt of IO's report. In such circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority issued a disagreement note and on considering the reply filed by the Applicant to the disagreement note, by Order, dated 27-12-2012, the Disciplinary Authority ordered 'removal' of the Applicant from service. Against the order of dismissal from service, the Applicant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority was pleased to modify the punishment as 'reduction by six stages from &#X20B9; 17,580 to &#X20B9; 14,020 in the pay scale of &#X20B9; 9,300 - 34,800 with Grade Pay of &#X20B9; 4,200 for a period of 3 years without cumulative effect and that the period from the date of removal till the date of joining will be treated as eligible leave. Against the above punishment the Applicant preferred this OA. The Applicant contended that the Respondents have used the power to remand the matter to the Disciplinary authority on two occasions only to deny the Applicant his due promotion and to spoil his career. The Applicant further contended that based on the report of the IO, the Disciplinary Authority was bound to drop the charge-memo. The Applicant further contended that the Reviewing Authority could not have remanded the matter without issuing a show-cause notice and therefore the Order, dated 7-4-2010 was illegal and arbitrary and therefore liable to be quashed. The Applicant further contended that the disagreement note issued by the Disciplinary Authority was an empty formality and that he has already made up his mind to spoil the career of the Applicant. He further contended that the events which preceded the issuance of disagreement note reveal the mala fide attitude on the part of the Respondents towards the Applicant and the ultimate punishment of reduction by six stages was harshest in nature in respect of charges which were held 'not proved' by the IO. On the other hand, the Respondents contended that the charge related to an incorrect appointment of a candidate as EDDA and he violated the directions contained in Query (6) in D.G's Letter No. 17-336/91-ED & Trg., dated 26-5-1995. Further the Applicant also lost ten applications received for appointment of EDDA Vadali SO from his custody and justified the ultimate punishment of reduction of pay by six stages awarded to him. Based on the facts which have evolved during the proceedings, the present case was considered by Hon'ble Tribunal as having two parts i.e. pre-and post-disagreement note, dated 22-6-2012. Since the pre-disagreement note punishments do not survive now, there was nothing to consider the same on merit. However, placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and another [(1999) 7 SCC 739] and also the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Union of India and others v. Surinder Kumar Virdi [Writ Petition (ST) No. 98637 of 2020 decided on 8-3-2021], the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the disagreement note issued by the Disciplinary Authority, which has to be tentative in nature, was conclusive and final in nature and it was a post-decisional document. The Hon'ble Tribunal also held that the contention of the Respondents that chance to reply to the disagreement note and hearing given to the Applicant is of no substance as the finding had already been arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority.

IT Rules

Disagreement note issued by the Disciplinary Authority, which has to be tentative in nature was conclusive and final in nature and it was a post decisional document. Disagreement not quashed and set aside. Held that chance to reply to the disagreement note and hearing given to the Applicant is of no substance as the finding had already been arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority — The chunk pertains to the disciplinary action taken against an employee, who was initially charged, found not guilty, but then had his punishment revised. The Disciplinary Authority later issued a di... — Facts: The Applicant was initially appointed as Postal Assistant on 9-4-1983. Subsequently he was promoted as Inspector of Post Offices with effect from 19-8-1994 after qualifying in a competitive examination. In January, 2008, the Applicant was further promoted as Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices on ad hoc basis, but the promotion was not given effect to. Subsequently, the Applicant was promoted as Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices on regular basis on 27-5-2008 and this was also not given effect to. Thereafter, the Applicant was issued with a charge-memo, dated 6-6-2008 under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 containing two articles of charges. The Applicant denied the charges and therefore an inquiry was held. The inquiry Officer submitted his report on 12-6-2009 holding the Applicant not guilty of the charges levelled against him. Based on the report of the inquiry officer, the Disciplinary Authority, by Order, dated 12-1-2010 imposed the penalty of censure. Upon review, without issuing any show-cause notice, by impugned Order, dated 7-4-2010, the Reviewing Authority remitted the matter to the Disciplinary authority for issuing a self-contained reasoned and speaking order. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, without issuing any show-cause notice to the Applicant, revised the earlier order of punishment and issued a fresh punishment Order on 31-5-2010 imposing the punishment of reduction by three stages in pay band &#X20B9; 9,300 - 34,800 with G.P. &#X20B9; 4,200 from the stage of &#X20B9; 15,720 to &#X20B9; 14,020 for a period of next three years without cumulative effect with further directions that the Applicant will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction. On the appeal filed by the Applicant against the revised order of punishment, the Appellate Authority remanded the matter for de novo proceedings from the stage of receipt of IO's report. In such circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority issued a disagreement note and on considering the reply filed by the Applicant to the disagreement note, by Order, dated 27-12-2012, the Disciplinary Authority ordered 'removal' of the Applicant from service. Against the order of dismissal from service, the Applicant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority was pleased to modify the punishment as 'reduction by six stages from &#X20B9; 17,580 to &#X20B9; 14,020 in the pay scale of &#X20B9; 9,300 - 34,800 with Grade Pay of &#X20B9; 4,200 for a period of 3 years without cumulative effect and that the period from the date of removal till the date of joining will be treated as eligible leave. Against the above punishment the Applicant preferred this OA. The Applicant contended that the Respondents have used the power to remand the matter to the Disciplinary authority on two occasions only to deny the Applicant his due promotion and to spoil his career. The Applicant further contended that based on the report of the IO, the Disciplinary Authority was bound to drop the charge-memo. The Applicant further contended that the Reviewing Authority could not have remanded the matter without issuing a show-cause notice and therefore the Order, dated 7-4-2010 was illegal and arbitrary and therefore liable to be quashed. The Applicant further contended that the disagreement note issued by the Disciplinary Authority was an empty formality and that he has already made up his mind to spoil the career of the Applicant. He further contended that the events which preceded the issuance of disagreement note reveal the mala fide attitude on the part of the Respondents towards the Applicant and the ultimate punishment of reduction by six stages was harshest in nature in respect of charges which were held 'not proved' by the IO. On the other hand, the Respondents contended that the charge related to an incorrect appointment of a candidate as EDDA and he violated the directions contained in Query (6) in D.G's Letter No. 17-336/91-ED & Trg., dated 26-5-1995. Further the Applicant also lost ten applications received for appointment of EDDA Vadali SO from his custody and justified the ultimate punishment of reduction of pay by six stages awarded to him. Based on the facts which have evolved during the proceedings, the present case was considered by Hon'ble Tribunal as having two parts i.e. pre-and post-disagreement note, dated 22-6-2012. Since the pre-disagreement note punishments do not survive now, there was nothing to consider the same on merit. However, placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and another [(1999) 7 SCC 739] and also the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Union of India and others v. Surinder Kumar Virdi [Writ Petition (ST) No. 98637 of 2020 decided on 8-3-2021], the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the disagreement note issued by the Disciplinary Authority, which has to be tentative in nature, was conclusive and final in nature and it was a post-decisional document. The Hon'ble Tribunal also held that the contention of the Respondents that chance to reply to the disagreement note and hearing given to the Applicant is of no substance as the finding had already been arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text