AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard both learned counsel for the applicant as well as for the respondents on both the MP and the OA. MP No. 261/2021 for taking the supplementary affidavit of the applicant on record is allowed and the affidavit is taken on record.
Indian Kanoon - http:// 1
As regards the OA, Shri Dharmendra Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted at the outset that this is a case where the applicant, who is a Gramin Dak Sewak with the respondent department, has been put off duty for a period which is well over 45 days without the matter being reviewed as is mandatorily required as per the respondent department's own directions, conveyed vide Director General (P&T)'s instructions dated 26th July, 1990; (Para-3 of Annexure-1 of the Supplementary Affidavit refers). The relevant portion of the instructions reads as under:
It is also necessary that the disciplinary authority makes every effort to finalize the disciplinary proceedings and pass final orders so that an EDA does not remain on put-off duty for a period exceeding 45 days and not 120 days as ordered previously. The Divisional Superintendent should draw up a time-table for ensuring finalization of disciplinary cases within this period.
If, due to unavoidable reasons, it is not possible to finalize a case within this period, the matter should be reported immediately to the next superior authority giving full justification why the EDA cannot be taken back to duty pending finalization of the case........"
Learned counsel for the applicant stated that in this particular case no mandatory review, as prescribed in the department's own instructions, has been carried out so far, although more than 8 months have passed since the applicant was put off duty on 21.09.2020. Shri Awasthi submitted that in these circumstances, he would be satisfied if a direction is given to the respondents to treat this OA as the representation of the applicant for being taken back on duty within a reasonable time frame even if departmental proceedings pursuant to the memorandum served on him continued thereafter.
Shri Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant, also prayed that before taking any decision on the aforementioned OA/ representation, the applicant may be given an opportunity of a personal hearing.
At this, Ms. Prayagmati Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that in case the OA is to be treated as a representation in the manner suggested and a personal hearing is also to be given to the applicant before finalising the decision on the same, the respondent department would require a period of at least two months in order to consider and dispose of the same.
Looking to the limited nature of the plea made by the learned counsel for the applicant and without entering into merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this OA at the stage of admission itself by directing the respondents to consider this OA as a representation and after affording the applicant an opportunity of hearing, pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law on the same and convey this to the applicant, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Original Application is, disposed of accordingly.
Indian Kanoon - http:// 2 Dharmendra Kumar Gond vs Union Of India on 28 June, 2021
There will be no order on costs. (A.MUKHOPADHAYA) MEMBER (A) Vidya/ JNS
Indian Kanoon - http:// 3