om:42-cl-2020-Apr — Tribunal felt the punishment of removal awarded to the Applicant for unauthorized absence due to personal problem of the Applicant, an Ex-Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster is to be reconsidered by remitting the case back to Appointing Authority quashing the orders of Disciplinary Authority

GDS Rules

Tribunal felt the punishment of removal awarded to the Applicant for unauthorized absence due to personal problem of the Applicant, an Ex-Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster is to be reconsidered by remitting the case back to Appointing Authority quashing the orders of Disciplinary Authority — A disciplinary case concerning an Ex-Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster, who was appointed on compassionate grounds and removed for unauthorized absence, is to be reconsidered due to inadequate inves... — Facts :Applicant was appointed as “Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster” on 11-6-2009 on compassionate ground due to death of his father. He applied for leave without allowance from 10-7-2010 to 31-8-2010 and left the village. He did not join back on duty due to various personal reasons as stated by him. The Respondents proposed to take disciplinary action under Rule 10 of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. Respondent No. 4, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices kept him on put-off duty vide his Order, dated 6-6-2011 which was confirmed by R-3, Superintendent of Post Offices, Ananthapur Division vide his Letter, dated 14-3-2012. A Memorandum, dated 14-3-2012 containing three charges was issued to the Applicant. On receipt of the reply by the Applicant for reasons of long absence, an enquiry was conducted which held that all three charges are proved. On appeal by Applicant, the punishment was upheld. Appellate Authority on the appeal of the Applicant dropped two charges and kept only one charge namely, unauthorized absence and punished him by removing him from service. In view of the above, the Applicant challenged the proceedings, dated 22-4-2013 whereby he prayed for setting aside the penalty of removal imposed on him. Applicant filed this OA challenging his removal on various grounds mainly stating that the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. Applicant states the punishment was imposed without taking into consideration his reply and the reasons for which he was punished is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution. Respondents filed their reply justifying the punishment on the Applicant on various grounds. Tribunal heard both sides. The moot questions to be decided are: 1. Whether the absence from duty can be treated as unauthorized without considering the compelling circumstances of the Applicant to be absent without permission. 2. Whether the punishment of removal is commensurate to the charges levelled against the Applicant even after dropping two charges℃ The case of Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India and another [ Civil Appeal No. 2106/2012, decided on 15-2-2012 ] is relied on by the Applicant. Paras. 16, 17, 18 and 25 of that judgment is reproduced wherein similar case was discussed. Based on the above-quoted case, the Tribunal held that the absence from duty is wilful or not is not decided convincingly except saying in their orders, that the submission of medical certificate by the Applicant is an afterthought. Compelling circumstance of the Applicant nor gone into genuineness of the medical certificate is not considered properly. Hence the answer to wilful absence is not proved. As regards quantum of punishment on perusal of Appellate Authority's order, it failed to consider the above aspect. Hence the judgment of Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others [ AIR 1996 SC 484 ] is liable to be applied in the present case. In that case, it was held that “the High Court / Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment shocks the conscience of the Court, Court would appropriately mould the relief”.

GDS Rules

Tribunal felt the punishment of removal awarded to the Applicant for unauthorized absence due to personal problem of the Applicant, an Ex-Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster is to be reconsidered by remitting the case back to Appointing Authority quashing the orders of Disciplinary Authority — A disciplinary case concerning an Ex-Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster, who was appointed on compassionate grounds and removed for unauthorized absence, is to be reconsidered due to inadequate inves... — Facts :Applicant was appointed as “Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster” on 11-6-2009 on compassionate ground due to death of his father. He applied for leave without allowance from 10-7-2010 to 31-8-2010 and left the village. He did not join back on duty due to various personal reasons as stated by him. The Respondents proposed to take disciplinary action under Rule 10 of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. Respondent No. 4, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices kept him on put-off duty vide his Order, dated 6-6-2011 which was confirmed by R-3, Superintendent of Post Offices, Ananthapur Division vide his Letter, dated 14-3-2012. A Memorandum, dated 14-3-2012 containing three charges was issued to the Applicant. On receipt of the reply by the Applicant for reasons of long absence, an enquiry was conducted which held that all three charges are proved. On appeal by Applicant, the punishment was upheld. Appellate Authority on the appeal of the Applicant dropped two charges and kept only one charge namely, unauthorized absence and punished him by removing him from service. In view of the above, the Applicant challenged the proceedings, dated 22-4-2013 whereby he prayed for setting aside the penalty of removal imposed on him. Applicant filed this OA challenging his removal on various grounds mainly stating that the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. Applicant states the punishment was imposed without taking into consideration his reply and the reasons for which he was punished is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution. Respondents filed their reply justifying the punishment on the Applicant on various grounds. Tribunal heard both sides. The moot questions to be decided are: 1. Whether the absence from duty can be treated as unauthorized without considering the compelling circumstances of the Applicant to be absent without permission. 2. Whether the punishment of removal is commensurate to the charges levelled against the Applicant even after dropping two charges℃ The case of Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India and another [ Civil Appeal No. 2106/2012, decided on 15-2-2012 ] is relied on by the Applicant. Paras. 16, 17, 18 and 25 of that judgment is reproduced wherein similar case was discussed. Based on the above-quoted case, the Tribunal held that the absence from duty is wilful or not is not decided convincingly except saying in their orders, that the submission of medical certificate by the Applicant is an afterthought. Compelling circumstance of the Applicant nor gone into genuineness of the medical certificate is not considered properly. Hence the answer to wilful absence is not proved. As regards quantum of punishment on perusal of Appellate Authority's order, it failed to consider the above aspect. Hence the judgment of Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others [ AIR 1996 SC 484 ] is liable to be applied in the present case. In that case, it was held that “the High Court / Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment shocks the conscience of the Court, Court would appropriately mould the relief”.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text