One Day, One Minute, One Rule – 400 What instructions were issued by the Directorate regarding promotions to the Higher Selection Grade-I (Non-Functional Grade) [HSG-I (NFG)] in light of the proposed merger of the Postmaster cadre with the general line?

TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -277

Punishment cannot be imposed unless inquiry into specific charges against the delinquent is held. 
1077. Where there was a statutory departmental inquiry into a railway accident and no charges were framed against any particular employee and the punishment was sought to be inflicted on the basis of that inquiry alone, the action was invalidated [Amalendu Ghosh v. D.T.S., AIR 1960 SC 992].

The disciplinary authority must apply its mind to the matter. 
1078. It is obligatory for the disciplinary authority to apply its mind to the whole matter before reaching the final conclusion. The disciplinary authority should not accept mechanically the report of inquiry [Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364] or advice of the Public Service Commission (A.N. D'Silva v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1130] or the Vigilance Commission [Nagraj Karjagi v. Syndicate Bank,, AIR 1991 SC 1507].

The matter must be considered objectively. 
1079. The reply of the delinquent to the charges must be considered objectively. The conduct of the employee during the inquiry or impropriety of the language used by him in his statements etc. should have no bearing on their dispassionate consideration (State of Bombay v. Nurul Latif Khan, AIR 1966 SC 269].

Final Order must be based on admissible material.
1080. If the order is based on material partly admissible and partly inadmissible which cannot be separated or partly on conjectures and surmises, the conclusion may be entirely vitiated [D.I.G., Police v. Amalnathan, AIR 1966 Madras 203]. The reason is that in such a situation it becomes impossible to see to what extent the mind of the disciplinary authority was affected by the irrelevant material. The principle, therefore, is that where the charges are composite and are found to be defective in part, the order of the disciplinary authority cannot be sustained. Otherwise, one will be entering the realm of conjectures to suppose that punishment could have been imposed on the basis of part of charges proved [Gajraj Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1973 SC 1285).