ups_00270 — An Applicant who boycotts the disciplinary proceedings resulting in ex parte proceedings has no inherent right to challenge the punishment order

An Applicant who boycotts the disciplinary proceedings resulting in ex parte proceedings has no inherent right to challenge the punishment order — The chunk is part of a judicial ruling in the case 'Shri S. Thandapani v. Representation by Director of Postal Services, Department of Posts, Southern Region and another.' It concerns an appeal filed... — Facts: The Applicant was appointed as GDS BPM, Kidaripatti BO, on 1-7-1985. He was placed under 'put-off duty' on 27-1-2000 and subsequently, a charge-memo was issued on 19-7-2000 by the second Respondent containing 5 articles of charges. The Applicant submitted his representation on 24-7-2000 stating that charges, II, III, IV and V were old charges in respect of which enquiries were already conducted and the Applicant was also punished and therefore cannot be reopened again. However, without taking into account his objections, the enquiry officer concluded the enquiry and held the charges as 'proved' and consequently by Order, dated 28-3-2002 issued by the second Respondent, the Applicant was dismissed from service. A review petition was filed by the Applicant and pending review petition, the Applicant filed O.A. No. 867 of 2005 and the same was dismissed. The review petition filed by the Applicant was considered and by Order, dated 18-8-2011 issued by the Assistant Director-General (GDS), Ministry of Communications and IT, the dismissal of the Applicant was set aside and a de novo enquiry from the stage of issue of fresh charge- sheet was ordered regarding charge No. 1 alone. It was further ordered that the Applicant may be deemed to have been placed under put off duty. Accordingly, a fresh charge memo was issued on 28-9-2012 in which two new charges framed. The charge memo dated 28-9-2012 was challenged by the Applicant before the Hon'ble Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1525 of 2013 with a prayer to set aside and quash the charge Memo, dated 28-9-2012. However, when the matter was pending before this Tribunal, without waiting for its outcome, the second Respondent conducted ex parte de novo enquiry and held the charges as proved and by Order, dated 26-12-2014, the punishment of ‘removal from service' was imposed on the Applicant by the SSPOs, Madurai Division. Since the charge-memo. culminated in the order of punishment, O.A. No. 1525 of 2013 was dismissed as infructuous. The Appeal, dated 5-10-2015 preferred by the Applicant against the punishment order was rejected by the Appellate Authority as time-barred. The Applicant therefore challenged the punishment order as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority before this Tribunal by filing O.A. 680 of 2016 wherein the same was disposed of by the Hon'ble Tribunal directing the Applicant to prefer an appeal along with an application for condoning delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the Applicant filed another Appeal, dated 12-5-2016 to the appellate authority. However, the appellate authority rejected the said appeal and confirmed the punishment imposed on the Applicant. Aggrieved by the same, the Applicant has preferred the present OA. The Applicant states that without considering his written submissions given to the enquiry officer and without providing sufficient opportunity, the enquiry officer held the charges as ‘proved'. After de novo enquiry was ordered and the Applicant was deemed to be placed under ‘put-off duty', he was not paid ex gratia subsistence allowance. The Applicant further contended that the charges related to incidents over 18 years old and that they are barred by limitation. The Applicant further contended that the without hearing him and without applying his mind and without going into the merits, the appellate authority has rejected his appeal and the Applicant has filed the present OA on the above and several other grounds. The Respondents state that as per the order passed by the Postal Directorate in the review petition filed by the Applicant, the Applicant was placed under put off duty and the Applicant was issued a fresh charge-sheet framing two new articles of charges in substitution of the charges in the charge-sheet, dated 19-7-2000 as per Rule 126 of Postal Manual Volume-III. It was further contended that as per the provisions of Rule 126 of Postal Manual Volume-III, it is open to the Disciplinary Authority to frame any other charge in addition to or in substitution of the original charge-sheet. Though de novo enquiry was conducted, the Applicant did not attend the enquiry. Instead, he claimed payment of ex gratia compensation and filed O.A. No. 197 of 2013 with a prayer to direct the Respondents to pay ex gratia payment pending de novo proceedings and subsequently on conclusion of de novo proceedings, order for payment of ex gratia compensation to the tune of ₹ 1,13,388 for the period of seemed put-off duty was issued on 17-11-2015 on the basis of the Order, dated 11-9-2015 of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 197 of 2013. But the Applicant took payment only on 20-6-2016. Though the Applicant was informed about the conduct of Rule 10 Inquiry against him and reasonable opportunities were given to him to attend the inquiry, he failed to attend any inquiry. The inquiry was therefore conducted ex parte and by Order, dated 26-12-2014, the Applicant was ‘removed from service'. The Respondents further submit that the Appeal, dated 12-5-2016 along with application for condonation of delay was received by the first Respondent and it was considered on merit and the appeal was dismissed by Order, dated 11-8-2016 passed by the Appellate Authority.