AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J):-
Learned counsel for the parties are present and heard.
The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following reliefs:–
“A) To issue an order or direction to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 31.8.2026 issued by Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Bareilly Division, Bareilly (Annexure A-1 to the Compilation No.1) and further pleased to quash the entire proceeding if any initiated against the applicant on the basis of alleged charge sheet Page 1 of 3 as well as all the consequential actions taken by the respondent authority.
B) To issue any other and further relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper be also awarded to the applicant.
C) Cost of proceeding be awarded to the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned charge-sheet dated 31.08.2026 has been issued in respect of the same alleged misconduct for which the applicant had earlier been proceeded against pursuant to a charge-sheet dated 03.10.2016. It is submitted that the earlier disciplinary proceedings, arising out of the same set of charges, had attained finality upon passing of the order by the Disciplinary Authority dated 06.10.2020, the appellate order dated 15.12.2023 and, finally, the revisional order dated 25.06.2024. The relevant paragraph of the order dated 25.06.2024 is quoted herein below:–
“Reduction to the Lower Post of Postal Assistant carrying level-4 in the Time Scale of Pay at Index-14 1.e. Rs. 37,500/-(Level-4 Index-14) from his substantive Post HSG-II carrying Level-6 for a Period of 08 Years w.e.f. Date of Penalty Order issued by the Disciplinary Authority Reduction shall not have the effect of postponing his future Increments and on the expiry of the Period, he shall regain his Original Seniority in the higher post of HSG-II in Level-6." It is further submitted that, notwithstanding the conclusion of the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, the respondents have issued the impugned charge-sheet dated 31.08.2026 on the same set of charges. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that this Tribunal, in an identical matter, vide order dated 03.09.2026 passed in O.A. No. 831 of 2026, Pankaj Tripathi v. Department of Posts, has considered a similar grievance. It is also submitted that, being aggrieved by the issuance of the second charge-sheet on the same set of charges, the applicant has submitted a representation dated 24.09.2026 before the competent authority, which is stated to be pending consideration.
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to file a counter affidavit.
Considering the nature of the grievance raised by the applicant, we are of the opinion that the present Original Application may be disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 4/competent authority to consider and decide the representation submitted by the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till such time, the respondents are restrained from giving effect to the impugned charge-sheet dated 31.08.2026. A certified copy of this order shall be issued free of cost today itself.
Accordingly, the instant Original Application stands disposed of with the above directions.
It is made clear that this Tribunal has not entered into the question of delay, laches, or the merits of the applicant’s claim. All issues are left open for consideration by the respondents.
All pending M.A.s, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.