ups_00277 — Applicant, a GDS / Mail deliverer who met with an accident and was hospitalized for over 3 months, did not inform the Department of his absence from duty. For such a reason of abandonment of duty is to be considered with concern and major punishment like removal from service is not to be ordered

UPS

Applicant, a GDS / Mail deliverer who met with an accident and was hospitalized for over 3 months, did not inform the Department of his absence from duty. For such a reason of abandonment of duty is to be considered with concern and major punishment like removal from service is not to be ordered — This chunk discusses an Original Application (O.A. No. 020/00369 of 2014) regarding a GDS / Mail deliverer who was hospitalized for over three months due to an accident in 2010 and did not inform the... — Facts: Applicant, an ST (Lambada) community initially appointed as GDS / Mail Carrier under Vuyyuru Sub-Division of Vijayawada sub-division of Postal Services met with an accident on 27-9-2010. He was bed-ridden and slipped into Coma. He was under treatment from 27-9-2010 to 31-10-2011. Applicant was issued with a charge-memo for unauthorized absence from 27-9-2010. On recovery, Applicant submitted a representation along with medical certificate explaining reason for unauthorized absence and requested to permit him to join duty. The Inspector, Vuyyuru sub-division, the Disciplinary Authority, dropped the disciplinary proceedings initiated for absence without informing the concerned authority by Order, dated 20/23-1-2012 without prejudice to further action considered, if any. However, R-5 Inspector of Posts issued another charge-memo alleging that the charge memo was returned on the ground of not residing in the village stated by the Applicant and said house is demolished. The charge-sheets and other cases were examined on the request of the Applicant for a direction to the Respondents to continue the Applicant to work as GDS / Mail Carrier / Deliverer, Manthena BO with all consequential benefits. Respondents state that Extra Departmental Agents (EDAs) are governed by EDA (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964, amended as Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. Other reasons for taking action against the Applicant is stated by Respondents. Tribunal after hearing both sides stated that, the Applicant has already accepted the punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority. Further the Counsel for the Applicant state that the Applicant could not be present in the office due to the accident met with by him and is suffering from cerebrovascular disease as well as Hypertension. Hence the doctor advised the Applicant to take bed rest which made the Applicant unable to attend the office. Hence Applicant's unauthorized absence is not wilful. The absence of the Applicant due to the fact that he met with an accident which led to a disease and hence his doctors asked him to take bed rest is undisputed.

UPS

Applicant, a GDS / Mail deliverer who met with an accident and was hospitalized for over 3 months, did not inform the Department of his absence from duty. For such a reason of abandonment of duty is to be considered with concern and major punishment like removal from service is not to be ordered — This chunk discusses an Original Application (O.A. No. 020/00369 of 2014) regarding a GDS / Mail deliverer who was hospitalized for over three months due to an accident in 2010 and did not inform the... — Facts: Applicant, an ST (Lambada) community initially appointed as GDS / Mail Carrier under Vuyyuru Sub-Division of Vijayawada sub-division of Postal Services met with an accident on 27-9-2010. He was bed-ridden and slipped into Coma. He was under treatment from 27-9-2010 to 31-10-2011. Applicant was issued with a charge-memo for unauthorized absence from 27-9-2010. On recovery, Applicant submitted a representation along with medical certificate explaining reason for unauthorized absence and requested to permit him to join duty. The Inspector, Vuyyuru sub-division, the Disciplinary Authority, dropped the disciplinary proceedings initiated for absence without informing the concerned authority by Order, dated 20/23-1-2012 without prejudice to further action considered, if any. However, R-5 Inspector of Posts issued another charge-memo alleging that the charge memo was returned on the ground of not residing in the village stated by the Applicant and said house is demolished. The charge-sheets and other cases were examined on the request of the Applicant for a direction to the Respondents to continue the Applicant to work as GDS / Mail Carrier / Deliverer, Manthena BO with all consequential benefits. Respondents state that Extra Departmental Agents (EDAs) are governed by EDA (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964, amended as Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. Other reasons for taking action against the Applicant is stated by Respondents. Tribunal after hearing both sides stated that, the Applicant has already accepted the punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority. Further the Counsel for the Applicant state that the Applicant could not be present in the office due to the accident met with by him and is suffering from cerebrovascular disease as well as Hypertension. Hence the doctor advised the Applicant to take bed rest which made the Applicant unable to attend the office. Hence Applicant's unauthorized absence is not wilful. The absence of the Applicant due to the fact that he met with an accident which led to a disease and hence his doctors asked him to take bed rest is undisputed.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text