Moti Lal vs Union Of India

The applicant has filed this Original Application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of impugned order dated 5.7.2016 (Annexure A-1), vide which he was dismissed from service.

The facts of the case, which led to filing of the instant Original Application, are that applicant was working as EDDA Khamadi as Gram Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer on 25.9.1996 and held that position for 19 years. He was put off duty under rule 12 of the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 on 8.12.2014. An inquiry under rule 10 of GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011 was initiated in which the applicant admitted the charges relating to absence from duty for 37 days without any reason and non delivery of 29 registered letters and asked for pardon from the respondents. An enquiry report was submitted on 15.4.2015 in which confessional statement of applicant was recorded and requested for closure of the enquiry. Copy of report containing admittance of charge by applicant was forwarded to him vide letter dated 20.4.2015. Ultimately order dated 11.5.2015 was passed removing the applicant from service as a measure of penalty. The applicant submitted an appeal on 15.5.2015, which was rejected vide order dated 16.6.2015. It was followed by another appeal dated 16.10.2015, 7.11.2015 and then on 25.5.2016, which was rejected vide order dated 5.7.2016, hence the O.A.

The respondents have filed a detailed reply. They submit that there is no violation of principles of natural justice. A proper enquiry was conducted in which applicant was given full opportunity to defend himself and since he had admitted the charge, as such impugned orders are as per rules and law.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and examined the material on file minutely.

M.A. No. 063/00014/2018 has been filed by the applicant for condonation of delay in filing the O.A. Even though there is no ground, much less cogent one is given in the plea seeking condonation of delay, but finding that the applicant belongs to poor strata of society and held the post of GDS only before his removal from service and to secure ends of justice, M.A. is allowed, in the peculiar facts of this case only. Delay in filing the O.A. is condoned.

Though a number of grounds qua legality of the impugned orders and proceedings have been taken in the O.A. but the learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that there has been violation of rule 19 of the GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011, as no notice before imposing impugned penalty was served upon the applicant and as such the proceedings stand vitiated. This vital point could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents, though he tried his best to defend the impugned orders.

A perusal of indicated rules shows that as per provision to rule 19 of the GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011, no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any Revisional Authority unless the Sevak concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) and (vi) of Rule 9 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be revised to any of the penalties specified in those clauses, no such penalty shall be imposed except after the enquiry in the manner laid down in Rule 10, in case no such enquiry has already been held. Rule 10 also provides that penalty of dismissal or removal shall not be imposed except after an enquiry in which one has been informed of the charges against him and has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges, provided further that where it is proposed after such enquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such enquiry.

It is not in dispute that the applicant has not been given any opportunity to explain his side of the case against the penalty of removal from service, which apparently is in violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law by a Court. The authorities were expected to follow the rules and law before imposing the penalty in question which has not been done in this case.

Thus, impugned order of penalty and subsequent orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

In the wake of aforesaid discussion, this O.A. is partly allowed. Impugned order, Annexure A-1 and subsequent orders upholding the same are also quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate orders, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, before imposing the intended penalty. However, the parties are left to bear their own respective costs.