it2025_00976 — Applicant had been dismissed from service. Earlier he had filed O.A. No. 2290 of 2010. It was heard along with O.A. No. 1777 of 2010. Order was passed on 12-8-2015 and matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to issue a reasoned speaking order, in regard to the observations made in the order. Pursuant thereto, the Director of Postal Services passed Order, dated 9-11-2015 confirming the dismissal. Hence this OA has been filed, to quash the impugned order. OA allowed. Impugned order qua

IT Rules

Applicant had been dismissed from service. Earlier he had filed O.A. No. 2290 of 2010. It was heard along with O.A. No. 1777 of 2010. Order was passed on 12-8-2015 and matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to issue a reasoned speaking order, in regard to the observations made in the order. Pursuant thereto, the Director of Postal Services passed Order, dated 9-11-2015 confirming the dismissal. Hence this OA has been filed, to quash the impugned order. OA allowed. Impugned order quashed. Appellate Authority directed to issue fresh speaking order strictly in conformity in terms of the earlier directions in O.A. No. 553 of 2013 in the matter of one Asit Baran Mondal — The chunk pertains to a case in which the Appellant was dismissed from service due to non-disclosure of assets, violating Rule 18(4) of CCS (Conduct) Rules. The case was remanded back to the Appellat... — Facts: Appellant was charged with violation of Rule 18(4) of CCS (Conduct) Rules for non-disclosure of assets and was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the same, he had filed O.A. No. 2290 of 2010, which was disposed of by Order, dated 12-8-2015 along with another O.A. No. 1777 of 2010. The Appellate Authority was directed to relook at the following:- (1) Whether the charge in regard to violation of Rule 18(4) is substantiated; (2) Whether the Applicant has been charged of non-disclosure of source of his spouse's Stree Dhan and whether he was supposed to disclose it; (3) Whether charges under Article I and III irrespective of Article II and subject to the aforesaid, if proved, would still merit imposition of penalty of dismissal from service; (4) Whether the Applicant deserves a lesser punishment as meted out to Vijay Shankar Sahu; (5) Whether the penalty imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the offence alleged in view of the M.H.A. OM, dated 28-8-1959. With this, the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority to issue a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant thereto, the Director of Postal Services issued Order, dated 9-11-2015 observing as under: Charge regarding violation of Rule 18(4) stands unequivocally established in the course of enquiry. Question of non-disclosure of source of spouse's Stree Dhan does not arise, as the suppression of information stands established beyond doubt. In the instant case, only Article I has been charged. Case of Shri Vijay Sankar Sahu cannot be treated at par with that of the Applicant. Charges are so serious in nature to retain the Applicant in the department.

IT Rules

Applicant had been dismissed from service. Earlier he had filed O.A. No. 2290 of 2010. It was heard along with O.A. No. 1777 of 2010. Order was passed on 12-8-2015 and matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to issue a reasoned speaking order, in regard to the observations made in the order. Pursuant thereto, the Director of Postal Services passed Order, dated 9-11-2015 confirming the dismissal. Hence this OA has been filed, to quash the impugned order. OA allowed. Impugned order quashed. Appellate Authority directed to issue fresh speaking order strictly in conformity in terms of the earlier directions in O.A. No. 553 of 2013 in the matter of one Asit Baran Mondal — The chunk pertains to a case in which the Appellant was dismissed from service due to non-disclosure of assets, violating Rule 18(4) of CCS (Conduct) Rules. The case was remanded back to the Appellat... — Facts: Appellant was charged with violation of Rule 18(4) of CCS (Conduct) Rules for non-disclosure of assets and was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the same, he had filed O.A. No. 2290 of 2010, which was disposed of by Order, dated 12-8-2015 along with another O.A. No. 1777 of 2010. The Appellate Authority was directed to relook at the following:- (1) Whether the charge in regard to violation of Rule 18(4) is substantiated; (2) Whether the Applicant has been charged of non-disclosure of source of his spouse's Stree Dhan and whether he was supposed to disclose it; (3) Whether charges under Article I and III irrespective of Article II and subject to the aforesaid, if proved, would still merit imposition of penalty of dismissal from service; (4) Whether the Applicant deserves a lesser punishment as meted out to Vijay Shankar Sahu; (5) Whether the penalty imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the offence alleged in view of the M.H.A. OM, dated 28-8-1959. With this, the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority to issue a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant thereto, the Director of Postal Services issued Order, dated 9-11-2015 observing as under: Charge regarding violation of Rule 18(4) stands unequivocally established in the course of enquiry. Question of non-disclosure of source of spouse's Stree Dhan does not arise, as the suppression of information stands established beyond doubt. In the instant case, only Article I has been charged. Case of Shri Vijay Sankar Sahu cannot be treated at par with that of the Applicant. Charges are so serious in nature to retain the Applicant in the department.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text