ups_00389 — The Postal Department should decide the admissible allowance for the Applicant from the date of his removal, i.e. 23-6-1997 till date of his reinstatement, i.e. 25-8-2009 considering the proviso below Note (2) of sub-rule 3 of the Rule 12 of GDS Rules, 2001 giving a personal hearing to the Applicant herein The EDA staff is not governed by the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, but governed by EDA Rules, 1964 and GDS Rules, 2001 as far as their service condition is concerned

UPS

The Postal Department should decide the admissible allowance for the Applicant from the date of his removal, i.e. 23-6-1997 till date of his reinstatement, i.e. 25-8-2009 considering the proviso below
Note (2) of sub-rule 3 of the Rule 12 of GDS Rules, 2001 giving a personal hearing to the Applicant herein The EDA staff is not governed by the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, but governed by EDA Rules, 1964 and GDS Rules, 2001 as far as their service condition is concerned — The Applicant, being an Extra Departmental Agent, is governed by EDA Rules and GDS Rules. Despite a modified punishment, the main grievance is to treat the period between removal and reinstatement as... — Facts: This is the second time the Applicant approaches the Tribunal. Applicant was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster under ED Agents (Conduct and Employment) Rules in the year 1977. In 1984, while he was serving under R-3, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Akola Division, he was taken up for alleged misappropriation of amount and failing to keep account books properly vide order, dated 26-2-1994. He was kept under put-off duty / suspension by R-3 and subsequently served with a major penalty charge-sheet on 5-8-1994 under EDA Rules. In 1996, the Enquiry Officer submitted the Enquiry Report finding it true in Item No.
(ii) of the said charge-sheet but found charge
(i) is not proved. But both the Disciplinary Authority and Director, R-2 found him guilty of charges and removed him from service. Hence he filed an O.A. No. 2002 of 2005. By Order, dated 16-7-2007, the Tribunal set aside the order and the case remanded back to Postmaster-General, R-1 as the order of removal passed is not a reasoned one and wrongly held that revision petition was time-barred. Thereafter, R-1 confirmed the order of both the lower authorities but modifying the removal from service to debarring the Applicant from appearing in recruitment examination for the post of Postman / Postal Assistant for a period of three years. He declined to hold that the intervening period from removal to reinstatement as leave with pay. The Applicant filed a petition to regularize the put-off duty from 26-2-1994 to 25-2-1999. No order was passed on that petition. Hence he filed this OA on 8-9-2010 to treat that period as leave with pay on three grounds based on GDS Rules and F.R. 54 (B) read with Para. 5 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. In this petition, the prayers are to treat the intervening period from the date of removal to reinstatement as leave without TRCA, to treat the period from put-off duty from 26-2-1994 to date of reinstatement as duty as per instruction 3 of FR 54-B with continuity of service and to pay TRCA from the date of put-off duty on 26-2-1994 till date of reinstatement with 12% p.a. interest. The reply of the Respondent denies relief of TRCA from the date of removal to reinstatement treating it as duty. As he was paid subsistence allowance for the put-off duty period, his case was not covered by the provisions of Rule 12 of GDS Rules, 2001 as he was punished by debarring him from departmental examination. The Applicant comes under EDA Rules only. As there is no minor or major penalties in EDA Rules, the impugned order passed by R-3 is in order even though it was modified. The period of deemed put-off duty from removal to reinstatement, he is entitled only to Time Related Continuity Allowance, i.e. TRCA. As he is a ED staff, he is governed by GDS Rules, 2001 only. The Tribunal noted that Applicant is reconciled with the modified punishment of barring him from appearing for departmental examination for a period of three years for the post of Postman / Postal Assistant. Hence the main grievance is only to treat the period between removal from service till his reinstatement as leave with full pay. As per rule, the Applicant is entitled during suspension period to get subsistence allowance till the departmental proceeding is concluded or so long the suspension order is revoked. The subsistence allowance was passed by R-1 as seen from the A-4. As the removal order is replaced by modified order of debarring him from appearing for the departmental examination for 3 years, the intervening period is also deemed to be put-off duty. The order of put-off duty of the Applicant is deemed to have continued in force from removal to reinstatement. The question is, whether the Respondents are justified in denying TRCA for the intervening period℃ From the study of proviso below note 2 of sub-rule 3 of Rule 12 of the GDS Rule 2001, it is obvious that a sevak will be entitled to receive full admissible allowance for the period of put-off duty if he is exonerated of the charges levelled against him. The Respondent is justified in saying that this part of the said proviso is not attracted in this case since the Applicant is not exonerated of the charge but penalty of less magnitude is imposed upon him in lieu of removal from service. But such withholding has to be effected after issuing a notice which was not due before denying him the allowance for the deemed put-offduty period from dismissal from service till reinstatement. Hence this point needs to be considered by R-3. Hence this issue should be referred back to R-3 for passing appropriate order after giving opportunity to the Applicant of personal hearing. As regards the contention of the Applicant that he is entitled to relief on the basis of provisions of FR 54 (3), it may be mentioned here that so far CCS (CCA) Rules are concerned, Rule 3 under sub-rule (2) states that President may by order exclude any class of Government servants from the operation of all or any of these rules. Under this rule, the President directed that Extra Departmental Agents are to be wholly excluded from the operation of the said Rules. Government of India's instructions in this connection is reproduced in the judgment. It is evident from the above decision that Gramin Dak Sevaks / Postman / Postal Assistants are not governed by these rules and they are governed by EDA Rules, 1964 and GDS Rules, 2001 so far their service condition is concerned. Hence the Applicant is entitled to get allowance for the deemed duty-off period by virtue of the fact that he is not governed by the CCS (CCA) Rules.

UPS

The Postal Department should decide the admissible allowance for the Applicant from the date of his removal, i.e. 23-6-1997 till date of his reinstatement, i.e. 25-8-2009 considering the proviso below
Note (2) of sub-rule 3 of the Rule 12 of GDS Rules, 2001 giving a personal hearing to the Applicant herein The EDA staff is not governed by the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, but governed by EDA Rules, 1964 and GDS Rules, 2001 as far as their service condition is concerned — The Applicant, being an Extra Departmental Agent, is governed by EDA Rules and GDS Rules. Despite a modified punishment, the main grievance is to treat the period between removal and reinstatement as... — Facts: This is the second time the Applicant approaches the Tribunal. Applicant was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster under ED Agents (Conduct and Employment) Rules in the year 1977. In 1984, while he was serving under R-3, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Akola Division, he was taken up for alleged misappropriation of amount and failing to keep account books properly vide order, dated 26-2-1994. He was kept under put-off duty / suspension by R-3 and subsequently served with a major penalty charge-sheet on 5-8-1994 under EDA Rules. In 1996, the Enquiry Officer submitted the Enquiry Report finding it true in Item No.
(ii) of the said charge-sheet but found charge
(i) is not proved. But both the Disciplinary Authority and Director, R-2 found him guilty of charges and removed him from service. Hence he filed an O.A. No. 2002 of 2005. By Order, dated 16-7-2007, the Tribunal set aside the order and the case remanded back to Postmaster-General, R-1 as the order of removal passed is not a reasoned one and wrongly held that revision petition was time-barred. Thereafter, R-1 confirmed the order of both the lower authorities but modifying the removal from service to debarring the Applicant from appearing in recruitment examination for the post of Postman / Postal Assistant for a period of three years. He declined to hold that the intervening period from removal to reinstatement as leave with pay. The Applicant filed a petition to regularize the put-off duty from 26-2-1994 to 25-2-1999. No order was passed on that petition. Hence he filed this OA on 8-9-2010 to treat that period as leave with pay on three grounds based on GDS Rules and F.R. 54 (B) read with Para. 5 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. In this petition, the prayers are to treat the intervening period from the date of removal to reinstatement as leave without TRCA, to treat the period from put-off duty from 26-2-1994 to date of reinstatement as duty as per instruction 3 of FR 54-B with continuity of service and to pay TRCA from the date of put-off duty on 26-2-1994 till date of reinstatement with 12% p.a. interest. The reply of the Respondent denies relief of TRCA from the date of removal to reinstatement treating it as duty. As he was paid subsistence allowance for the put-off duty period, his case was not covered by the provisions of Rule 12 of GDS Rules, 2001 as he was punished by debarring him from departmental examination. The Applicant comes under EDA Rules only. As there is no minor or major penalties in EDA Rules, the impugned order passed by R-3 is in order even though it was modified. The period of deemed put-off duty from removal to reinstatement, he is entitled only to Time Related Continuity Allowance, i.e. TRCA. As he is a ED staff, he is governed by GDS Rules, 2001 only. The Tribunal noted that Applicant is reconciled with the modified punishment of barring him from appearing for departmental examination for a period of three years for the post of Postman / Postal Assistant. Hence the main grievance is only to treat the period between removal from service till his reinstatement as leave with full pay. As per rule, the Applicant is entitled during suspension period to get subsistence allowance till the departmental proceeding is concluded or so long the suspension order is revoked. The subsistence allowance was passed by R-1 as seen from the A-4. As the removal order is replaced by modified order of debarring him from appearing for the departmental examination for 3 years, the intervening period is also deemed to be put-off duty. The order of put-off duty of the Applicant is deemed to have continued in force from removal to reinstatement. The question is, whether the Respondents are justified in denying TRCA for the intervening period℃ From the study of proviso below note 2 of sub-rule 3 of Rule 12 of the GDS Rule 2001, it is obvious that a sevak will be entitled to receive full admissible allowance for the period of put-off duty if he is exonerated of the charges levelled against him. The Respondent is justified in saying that this part of the said proviso is not attracted in this case since the Applicant is not exonerated of the charge but penalty of less magnitude is imposed upon him in lieu of removal from service. But such withholding has to be effected after issuing a notice which was not due before denying him the allowance for the deemed put-offduty period from dismissal from service till reinstatement. Hence this point needs to be considered by R-3. Hence this issue should be referred back to R-3 for passing appropriate order after giving opportunity to the Applicant of personal hearing. As regards the contention of the Applicant that he is entitled to relief on the basis of provisions of FR 54 (3), it may be mentioned here that so far CCS (CCA) Rules are concerned, Rule 3 under sub-rule (2) states that President may by order exclude any class of Government servants from the operation of all or any of these rules. Under this rule, the President directed that Extra Departmental Agents are to be wholly excluded from the operation of the said Rules. Government of India's instructions in this connection is reproduced in the judgment. It is evident from the above decision that Gramin Dak Sevaks / Postman / Postal Assistants are not governed by these rules and they are governed by EDA Rules, 1964 and GDS Rules, 2001 so far their service condition is concerned. Hence the Applicant is entitled to get allowance for the deemed duty-off period by virtue of the fact that he is not governed by the CCS (CCA) Rules.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text