om:7-cl-2025-Jan — Even when the delinquent has admitted the charges, it is necessary to the authorities to hold an inquiry under the prescribed rules

Even when the delinquent has admitted the charges, it is necessary to the authorities to hold an inquiry under the prescribed rules — The chunk pertains to the Tribunal's decision to quash and set aside the impugned orders of the disciplinary, appellate, and revision authorities due to their inapplicability to the case facts and no... — Facts: The Applicant was appointed as GDS Branch Postmaster, Thimmaipally BO a/w. Haveli Ghanpur SO-502113 on 3-2-2000. Pending contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, the Applicant was placed under 'Put Off Duty' with effect from 9-8-2011. Thereafter, he was issued with a charge memo under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 on 20-5-2014 containing 2 articles of charges. The allegations in the first article of charge is that, he accepted deposits in SB Account No. 612497 and did not enter the transactions in the BO journal and failed to account for the transactions in the BO account on the same day and thus misappropriated the amount. Similarly, the second article of charge is that, the Applicant accepted deposits in SB Account No. 615053 and did not enter the transactions in the BO journal and failed to account for the transactions in the BO account on the same day and thus misappropriated the amount and thus contravened the provisions of Rule 131, 135 and 165 of Rules for Branch Offices and failed to maintain absolute integrity as required by Rule 21 of GDS ('C' and 'E') Rules, 2011.

In the preliminary inquiry conducted on 5-9-2014, the Applicant admitted the charges levelled against him. Based on the admission recorded, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 17-9-2014 holding the charges as proved. Accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of 'removal' from service by impugned Order, dated 26-9-2014.

Aggrieved by the punishment of 'removal', the Applicant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority on 8-11-2014 stating that he had accepted the guilt in the statement of defence and preliminary enquiry with a good faith that he would be let off with a lenient view, but he was removed from service on the simple admission of guilt. But the Appellate Authority confirmed the punishment. The Applicant therefore preferred a petition to the 2nd Respondent on 21-9-2015 which was also rejected by impugned Order, dated 27-11-2015.

The Applicant contends that on the date of enquiry, i.e. 5-9-2014, in the presence of the IO, the Presenting Officer persuaded the Applicant to admit the charges unconditionally and therefore he admitted the charges presuming that they will impose a lighter punishment. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant further contended that even though the Applicant had admitted his guilt, that does not mean that the inquiry can be curtailed and as per the law laid down by the Supreme court, a detailed inquiry must have been held.

The Respondents contend that the Applicant was given 10 days' time to submit his defence and in his reply, dated 23-6-2014, the Applicant admitted all the charges levelled against him. The Respondents further deny the contention of the Applicant that he submitted his representation only as per the advice of the sub-divisional authority. The Respondents further state that the Applicant attended the inquiry on 5-9-2014 and voluntarily admitted the charges levelled against him and therefore there was no need to conduct all stages of inquiry as per rules. The Respondents further deny the allegation of persuasion by the PO on 5-9-2014 on the ground that the PO was absent in the preliminary hearing held on 5-9-2024.