om:41-cl-2019-May — In a disciplinary case disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority takes action, then reasons for the same ought to have been specified and the same cannot be substituted by general comments as stated in the case of Ratan Singh v. State of UP and others [reported in 2010 (9) ADJ 82]. In view of the above in the present case, the impugned order, dated 10-4-2014 which is based on the show-cause notice dated 10-12-2013 which is not supported by cogent reason is set aside with all c

GDS Rules

In a disciplinary case disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority takes action, then reasons for the same ought to have been specified and the same cannot be substituted by general comments as stated in the case of Ratan Singh v. State of UP and others [reported in 2010 (9) ADJ 82]. In view of the above in the present case, the impugned order, dated 10-4-2014 which is based on the show-cause notice dated 10-12-2013 which is not supported by cogent reason is set aside with all consequential benefits — The given chunk describes a sequence of events in a disciplinary case against an employee named Applicant, who was initially barred from recruitment for three years and treated as on non-duty after b... — Facts: Applicant was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (GDS BPM) at Jahirpur B.O. from 3-3-1991. While working so, the Applicant was issued with a charge-sheet, dated 19-5-2011 and the Applicant was also put-off duty earlier from 31-3-2008. An enquiry was ordered which concluded, dated 28-5-2013 holding that the charges are partly proved. Disciplinary Authority based on the enquiry report debarred the Applicant from appearing in the recruitment examination and for being considered for recruitment for a period not exceeding 3 years and treated the "put off" duty as "non-duty" for all purposes. The said order is extracted in the judgment.
Applicant did not file an appeal on the punishment awarded to him and he was engaged as GDS as per order, dated 9-9-2013 which is extracted in the judgment.
Subsequently, the Revisional Authority, Director of Postal Services, R-3 herein, exercising his Revisional Authority issued a show-cause notice asking the reply of the Applicant for removal from service. The show-cause notice issued is reproduced.
Applicant submitted his reply. But the Revisional Authority, Director of Postal Services, issued the order, dated 10-4-2014 imposing the order of "Removal from Engagement" with immediate effect.
This OA is filed seeking relief of setting aside the Memorandum, dated 4-9-2013 and order, dated 10-4-2014 seeking refund of money deposited by the Applicant with consequential benefits.
Applicant challenged the order, dated 4-9-2013 passed by DA on the ground that both the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority have not considered the deposition of DW-1 and DW-2. She further stated that, she is not involved in fraud. Collection of money door to door by GDS DA of Jahirpur B.O. in her name did not credit the amount in their accounts. However, Applicant deposited the amount collected to save her job.
Applicant did not file any appeal against the order passed by Disciplinary Authority. As such she cannot challenge the same in this OA.
Order of Revisional Authority, dated 10-12-2013 intending to revise the order passed by DA has not given any reason whatsoever for exercising Revisional power. Further, the Revisional Authority has not recorded any reason or shortcomings on the part of the Applicant against enhancement of punishment. Hence the order of authorities deprived the Applicant for making effective representation against enhancement of punishment. Applicant relied on the order of Allahabad High Court in the case of Ratan Singh v. State of of U.P. and others [reported in 2010 (9) ADJ 82]. Para. 43 of the said judgment is reproduced. The main point in that judgment is that, "State Government was proceeding to take a different view in the matter namely, disagreeing with the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, then reasons for the same ought to have been specified and the same cannot be substituted by general comments."

GDS Rules

In a disciplinary case disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority takes action, then reasons for the same ought to have been specified and the same cannot be substituted by general comments as stated in the case of Ratan Singh v. State of UP and others [reported in 2010 (9) ADJ 82]. In view of the above in the present case, the impugned order, dated 10-4-2014 which is based on the show-cause notice dated 10-12-2013 which is not supported by cogent reason is set aside with all consequential benefits — The given chunk describes a sequence of events in a disciplinary case against an employee named Applicant, who was initially barred from recruitment for three years and treated as on non-duty after b... — Facts: Applicant was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (GDS BPM) at Jahirpur B.O. from 3-3-1991. While working so, the Applicant was issued with a charge-sheet, dated 19-5-2011 and the Applicant was also put-off duty earlier from 31-3-2008. An enquiry was ordered which concluded, dated 28-5-2013 holding that the charges are partly proved. Disciplinary Authority based on the enquiry report debarred the Applicant from appearing in the recruitment examination and for being considered for recruitment for a period not exceeding 3 years and treated the "put off" duty as "non-duty" for all purposes. The said order is extracted in the judgment.
Applicant did not file an appeal on the punishment awarded to him and he was engaged as GDS as per order, dated 9-9-2013 which is extracted in the judgment.
Subsequently, the Revisional Authority, Director of Postal Services, R-3 herein, exercising his Revisional Authority issued a show-cause notice asking the reply of the Applicant for removal from service. The show-cause notice issued is reproduced.
Applicant submitted his reply. But the Revisional Authority, Director of Postal Services, issued the order, dated 10-4-2014 imposing the order of "Removal from Engagement" with immediate effect.
This OA is filed seeking relief of setting aside the Memorandum, dated 4-9-2013 and order, dated 10-4-2014 seeking refund of money deposited by the Applicant with consequential benefits.
Applicant challenged the order, dated 4-9-2013 passed by DA on the ground that both the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority have not considered the deposition of DW-1 and DW-2. She further stated that, she is not involved in fraud. Collection of money door to door by GDS DA of Jahirpur B.O. in her name did not credit the amount in their accounts. However, Applicant deposited the amount collected to save her job.
Applicant did not file any appeal against the order passed by Disciplinary Authority. As such she cannot challenge the same in this OA.
Order of Revisional Authority, dated 10-12-2013 intending to revise the order passed by DA has not given any reason whatsoever for exercising Revisional power. Further, the Revisional Authority has not recorded any reason or shortcomings on the part of the Applicant against enhancement of punishment. Hence the order of authorities deprived the Applicant for making effective representation against enhancement of punishment. Applicant relied on the order of Allahabad High Court in the case of Ratan Singh v. State of of U.P. and others [reported in 2010 (9) ADJ 82]. Para. 43 of the said judgment is reproduced. The main point in that judgment is that, "State Government was proceeding to take a different view in the matter namely, disagreeing with the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, then reasons for the same ought to have been specified and the same cannot be substituted by general comments."

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text