Rules, Rights & Rites -4 – Disciplinary action for GDS strike – Quashed by Cuttack CAT
I usually post all important items related to official rulings, union news, and other general matters on my YouTube channels: Yourskayveeyes (English) and Anbudan Kayveeyes (Tamil).
However, due to the recent spate of orders and the high volume of information being received, I have not been able to convert every item into a video. Therefore, I am introducing these new slots to post current matters and updates that have not yet been published on YouTube. This ensures you stay informed on every detail, even if a video hasn't been made yet …………….Kayveeyes
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Cuttack Bench, order dated November 17, 2025, which quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated against Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS).
The common order covered multiple Original Applications (O.A. Nos. 260/00100, 106, 111, 112, 142, 178, 179, 225, 246, 374 & 741 of 2024).
• The Tribunal quashed the charge sheets issued to the applicants under Rule 10B (Major Penalties) of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, ruling that they were not sustainable in the eyes of law.
• Consequently, the appointments of the Inquiry Officers (IOs) and Presenting Officers (POs) to proceed with the inquiry were also annulled.
• The CAT bench held that the allegations in the charge sheets were "vague, indefinite and based on conjecture and surmises".
• The Tribunal observed that there was no allegation that the applicants had resorted to any action of incitement, violence, or sabotage, which is a precondition for initiating disciplinary proceedings against them.
• The judgment noted that allowing the inquiries to continue would amount to a "post-decisional hearing," which violates the principles of natural justice.
• The bench concluded that allowing the disciplinary proceedings to stand would be equivalent to permitting a "sword of Damocles on the heads of the applicants," resulting in harassment and humiliation.
• The Tribunal made it clear that this order is confined to the applicants alone who were part of these original applications
• The Tribunal specifically rejected the Postal Authorities' counter-arguments because:
• They failed to show any order declaring the strike illegal.
• The department's assertions that the GDS employees failed to hand over key items (DARPAN devices, cash, stamps, keys) were not included in the charge sheets themselves.
• There was no proof that officials had attempted to collect office articles from the striking employees.
• The Tribunal used the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" (when the foundation is removed, the work falls) to justify the annulment of the Inquiry Officers (IOs) and Presenting Officers (POs) appointments immediately after quashing the underlying charge sheets.
• The applicants argued that:
• They went on a peaceful strike after serving a proper notice to seek redressal of long-pending service grievances.
• The department had already deducted their Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) for the strike days, which they contended should have sufficed as disciplinary action, making further punitive action unnecessary.
The postal authorities had argued that the charge sheets were not punishment orders and were simply an initiation of an inquiry, but the Tribunal disagreed with allowing the inquiry to proceed on "vague" charges
Post a Comment