High Court · 2025

1. Union of lndia, represented by the Secretary',Government of lndia' Ministry of communication rno jT.biiifiriii"ioi poit6-lndia, DakBhavan, SansadMars, 2. The Chief Postmaster General, A P.Circle' DakSadan Abids Hyderabad- 3. The Director of Postal Services' Hyderabad Region' O/o Postmaster General -' HVOJTaUaO Region, Hyderabad -500001' 500001 .

4.TheSuperintendentofPostOffices'WarangalDivisionWarangalDistrict- Telangana -506002 ...PETITIONERS AND Sri A Krishna, S/o Late A Chandraiah' Age-d abotrt 45 vears Occ Gramin Dak sevak Branch postmi".Gr iiEiabvEoi <i"trrcherla B.O. a/w Dornakal S.o R/o. H.No-5-1 -gelt, Vid;; Nlagar, Oornarar' Warangal Dist'50638 1' Warangal Division. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleasedtoissueaWritororderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureof Writ of Certiorari cattlng fire records pertaining to impugned - 9'*l .d'td 28.02.2024 in oA No.1Sr? oiiors passed by the Hon'ble central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad eencn ii ilo"t"u'o ani quash the same as contrary to law' arbitrary, unjust IAN O:. 1OF 2O24 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit fited in suppJrt oi tnt p"iiti*, ir'" Uign Court may be pleased to il; *il;";d order dated 28'02 2024 in oA No 1517 of suspend the operation "f 2015 passed by the Hon'ble central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad, pending disposal of Wp counsel for the Petitioners: sRI G.R.s AKHILESWAR REPRESENTING sRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOL|CITOR GEN. oF INDIA Counsel for the Respondents: SRt M VENKANNA . The Court made the following: ORDER I I I I I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR STIAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Writ Petition No.3O45O of2o24 ORDER: (Per tte Hon'ble Si Justice Abhinand Kumat Shnlrli) Aggrieved by the order dated 2a'O2'2O24 passed in O.A.No.1517 of 2O15 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), the present Writ Petition is hled'

2. Heard Sri G.R.S. Akhileswar, learned counsel representing learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners and Sri M' Venkanna' learned counsel appearing for respondent' l,earned counsel appearing for the petitioners had 3. contended. that the respondent was appointed as a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Carrier at Dornakal on 01.i1.1997. Upon abolition of the said post' he was re- designated as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master at Gollachar1a on 01.O5'2O05' While he was in service' the petitioners had noticed that the respondent was 2 AKS,J & ETD,J wp 3045C 2024 indulged 1n misappropriation of office funds. Consequently, the disciplinary proceedings initiated and. the charge memo, dated 12.12.20 13 was issued, to which the respondent admitted. After conducting the disciplinar5r enquiry, the disciplinary authorit5r has imposed a major penalt-v of removal from service on 31.01.2015. Thereafter, the respondent has unsuccessfully preferred an appeal and later challenged the orders of punishment of removal before the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1517 of 2O15 and the Tribunal was pleased to allow the O.A. vide order, dated 28.02.2024 and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent into serr,'ice and conduct de-novo enquiry, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the pe trtrone rs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that since the respondent has admitted all the charges levelled against him, the question f o conducting disciplinary enquiry would not arise. Therefore, altpropriate orders be passed in the Writ 3 AKS,J & ETD,J \np 30450 2024 Petition by setting aside the order, dated 28'O2'2024 passed in O.A.No.1517 of 2015 and allow the Writ i I I I Petition 5 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent had contended that no proper enqulry was conducted and no opportunity was given to the respondent to defend himself before the Enquiry Officer' The Tribunal had rlghtly set aside the orders of pr.rnishment of removal imposed by the disciplinary authoriff and ttre order passed by the appellate authorit5r by grving liberty to the petitioners to conduct de nova enqrriry, however, it did not grant back wages to the respondent, applying the principle of 'no work no pay'. t,earned counsel had further contended that instead of comp\ring with the Tribunal's direction and conducting the de nova enquiry, the petitioners have chosen to fite the present Writ Petition, which was pending for two years. Had the Tribunal's order been complied with, the petitioners ought to have given the respondent an opportunity to defend himself through 4 AKS,J & ETD,.I lup 30.150 2024 de nova enquiry. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed

6. This Cr>urt, having considered the submissions made by both the parties, is of the view that the Tribunal has held that no opportunit5r was given to the respondent in the enquiry. The Enquiry Ofhcer merely relied upon the respondent's admission ald helC the charges 'proved'. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly directed for de nova enquiry to ensure that the respondent hLas an opportunit5r to defend himself. The petitioners could have conducted a de nova enquiry and concluded the disciplinary proceedings way back in the year 2024. Instead. they fi6y. chosen to file the present Writ Petition, which has been pending for two years. It is also observed that the Tribunal has not granted backwages to the respondent. Therefore, ends of justice would be m<:t, if the petitioners conduct a de nova enquiry and ltass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Thereforr:, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the'tribunal. 5 AKS,J & ETD,J 'tP_3O4sO m24

7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. S l- . OSMAN ALIBAIG ANT REGIST /ITRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER OR GEN. OF INDIA To, '1 . OneCCto SRI.GADI PRAVEENKUMARDv SOLI loPUCl

2. One CC to SRl. M VENKANNA Mvocate IOPUC] 3. T',vo CD CoPies KKS GJP HIGH COURT ' DATED:0210712025 .-i' ^ .t- . ".t ..i. . I l0 su 2625 \.1' ,. \.. ORDER WP.No.30450 of 2024 5 4 1 32./{I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS