1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.13796/2023 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: SRI B.K. HARISH AGE 33 YEARS S/O SRI B.V. KRISHNAPPA GRAMIN DAK SEVAK/ MAIL DELIVERY (GDS/MD) MALUR SUB-OFFICE MALUR- 563130 KOLAR POSTAL DIVISION, KOLAR. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.A. KULKARNI, ADV.) AND: 1. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL KARNATAKA CIRCLE PALACE ROAD BENGALURU- 560 001. 2. POST MASTER GENERAL AND REVISIONARY AUTHORITY S.K. REGION, PALACE ROAD BENGALURU- 560 001. 2 3. DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY OFFICE OF POST MASTER GENERAL S.K. REGION, PALACE ROAD BENGALURU – 560001. 4. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY KOLAR DIVISION KOLAR – 563 101. 5. ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES KOLAR SUB-DIVISION KOLAR – 563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAMA BHAT K., ADV. FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT/ ORDER / DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2023 IN OA-170/392/2021 ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY CAT BENGALURU BENCH BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THE OA NO.392/2021 AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 16.06.2025 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF 3 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, a dismissed Gramin Dak Sevak (MC) (for short “GDS”) is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 02.06.2023 in O.A.No.170/00392/2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”), dismissing petitioner’s challenge to the order of penalty of removal dated 12.11.2020 (Annexure-A11) and consequential appellate and revisional orders. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: The petitioner, while working as GDS at Vemgal Sub-Office, Kolar Sub-Division, Kolar, was issued with Articles of charge dated 05.03.2020 (Annexure-A2) alleging that e-Money Orders are paid in the name of deceased payees. It was the specific allegation that 4 social security pensions which were received through e-Money Orders were paid though the petitioner had the knowledge of death of such persons. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge memo on 25.04.2020 (Annexure-A3) expressing his regret and stated that the mistakes that happened at Baliganahalli are not intentional and happened beyond his reach and also stated that he would not repeat such mistakes. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. Before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner submitted Annexure- A4/letter dated 18.08.2020 wherein also he has stated that the mistakes that happened are unintentional and happened beyond his reach. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 15.10.2020 holding that the charges are proved against the petitioner, based on his admission letter. Based on the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority under impugned order at 5 Annexure-A11 dated 12.11.2020 imposed punishment of removal from engagement as Dak Sevak. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority/Director of Postal Services, South Karnataka Region. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 18.01.2021 rejected the appeal. Further, the petitioner has filed revision before the Post Master General, South Karnataka Region. The revisional authority, by its order dated 09.07.2021 rejected the revision, confirming the order of the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated application. The Tribunal also rejected the application holding that, since the charges were admitted by the applicant unconditionally, holding further enquiry would not 6 arise and thus confirmed the order of penalty. Aggrieved by the above orders, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri.P.A.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Ram Bhat, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel Sri.P.A.Kulkarni for petitioner would submit that the punishment imposed in pursuance of the Articles of Charge dated 05.03.2020 (Annexure-A2) without conducting enquiry is contrary to Rule 10 of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 (for short “2011 Rules”). Learned counsel for the petitioner taking us through the first proviso to Rule 10 of 2011 Rules would submit that for imposing penalty of dismissal or removal from engagement, enquiry would be 7 necessary and the punishment of dismissal or removal cannot be imposed except after an enquiry. In the instant case, he submits that, though the petitioner admitted to the charge to some extent, regular enquiry was necessary in terms of the first proviso to Rule 10 of GDS Rules. Further, learned counsel would submit that Rule 10 was subsequently amended under Notification dated 14.02.2020, which would state that the enquiry has to be conducted even if the GDS accepts charges in the cases where major penalty is to be imposed by Engaging Authority. Thus, he submits that subsequently it is made clear that for imposing major penalty, an enquiry shall have to be conducted. Hence, he submits that enquiry would be necessary in terms of GDS Rules, 2011, though GDS accepts the charge. Since the Enquiry Officer has failed to examine the witness and mark documents, the entire proceedings culminating in imposing punishment of 8 removal from engagement is vitiated. Further, learned counsel contended that the Tribunal failed to consider as to whether in terms of Rule 10 of GDS Rules, enquiry was necessary and without appreciating the rule, held that when the delinquent official accepts the charges, holding an enquiry would be an empty formality, which is contrary to Rule 10 of GDS Rules. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri.Rama Bhat.K., supports the order of the Tribunal and submits that when the petitioner/delinquent official admitted the charges, the Enquiry Officer was justified in coming to the conclusion that charges are proved on the basis of admission of guilt by the petitioner/delinquent official. Learned counsel referring to Rule 10 of 2011 Rules would submit that the petitioner/delinquent official was informed in writing about the proposal to take action and the allegations affording an opportunity to make representation. It is 9 submitted that in the representation, the petitioner admitted the charges so also before the Enquiry Officer by filing representation, petitioner has admitted the charges. In that circumstance, it is submitted that there was no necessity to conduct enquiry. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the points which fall for our consideration are as to, 1) Whether in the facts of the present case and in terms of Rule 10 of GDS Rules, conducting an enquiry was necessary? 2) Whether it is a case for interfering with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as penalty of removal from engagement? 10 7. Answer to the above points would be in the Affirmative for the following reasons: The petitioner was working as Gramin Dak Sevak at Vemagal, Kolar Sub-division, Kolar, during which period, articles of charge dated 05.03.2020 was issued to the petitioner alleging in sum and substance, delivering/paying e-Money Orders received towards social security pension. The charges against the petitioner is very serious. The petitioner replied to the charge memo under Annexure-A3 dated 25.04.2020. In his reply, he has stated as follows: “The mistakes happened at the Baliganahalli are not intentional and were happened at beyond my reach. I assure that, I will not repeat such mistakes in future. Kindly excuse me this time. I am very much regretted for the inconvenience caused to the department.” 11 8. Not being satisfied with the reply, the Disciplinary Authority appointed the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (HQ) as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. Before the Enquiry Officer also, the petitioner filed letter dated 18.08.2020 and in the said letter, the petitioner stated as follows: “The mistakes happened at the Baliganahalli are not intentional and were happened at beyond my reach. I assure that, I will not repeat such mistakes in future. Kindly excuse this time. I am very much regretted for the inconvenience caused to the department.” 9. In the order sheet dated 18.08.2020, wherein, the petitioner has also signed, the Enquiry Officer recorded that the petitioner admitted charges (1) to (5). Based on the admission of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer without examining any witnesses and without marking any documents, submitted his report dated 15.10.2020 holding that the charges 12 are proved in view of the unequivocal admission. The petitioner was issued with second show cause notice along with the enquiry report. The petitioner replied to the second show cause notice vide Annexure-A10 dated 04.11.2020 wherein he has stated as follows: “1. I have admitted all the charges leveled against me during inquiry sitting. 2. I have already explained the grounds under which the mistakes were happened vide my letter dated 18.08.2020 addressed to your kind office, in reply to memo of charges. 3. I am a native of Baliganahalli Village. When I was working as BPM, at that time my father was suffering with cardiac problem. He has to be taken hospital very frequently. During that time I was engaged a boy who is my relative for my assistance in post office work. I used to take his help whenever I 13 was going to Bangalore taking my father for hospital. 4. Most of my relatives (Brothers of my father) are residing in Baliganahalli village and are not in good terms with my family due to land/property disputes. The boy who engaged for post office work was instigated by my relatives and make him to commit some mistakes. I do not know the mistakes committed by him. 5. I know that, engaging on outsider un- authorizedly to work in BO is not legally correct. But, I have no other go as the circumstances forced me to do so. As a only son, this is my duty to look after my aged ailing father besides working in the BO for my livelihood. My financial position made me to engage on outsider who is my nearest relative. I never anticipated that he will make me scape goat. 6. I took transfer to Vemgal as GDSMC leaving the post of BPM at Baliganahalli, 14 to look after my father and to take him to R.L.Jalappa hospital for treatment whenever needed and which is also very economical when compared to hospitals at Bangalore. Even now, my father is admitted in intensive care for the last 20 days for cardiac problem. Further, I am already working in a post where no cash handling is involved. (As GDSMC at Vemgal SO). There is no scope for me to commit any such mistakes in my career. The mistakes happened at Baliganahalli BO are not intentional and were happened beyond my reach. I assure that, I will not repeat such mistakes in future. Kindly excuse me this time. I am very much regretted for the inconvenience caused to the department. Kindly excuse me this time and allow me to continue in the department, for which kind act of grace, I shall be ever grateful to you Sir.” 10. Taking note of the enquiry report and petitioner’s reply to the second show cause notice, 15 the disciplinary authority under impugned order dated 12.11.2020 (Annexure-A11) imposed punishment of removal from engagement. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner against the order of removal was confirmed. Now the question is, in the above fact situation, whether the enquiry was required to be conducted in terms of Rule 10 of GDS Rules. 11. Articles of charge issued by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kolar Division, Kolar is dated 05.03.2020. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry proceedings on 03.10.2020 and submitted his report on 15.10.2020. The disciplinary authority/ Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kolar Division, Kolar imposed punishment of removal from engagement by proceedings dated 12.11.2020 (Annexure-A11). As on the date of issuance of articles of charge, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and 16 Engagement) Rules, 2020 (for short, ‘2020 Rules’) had come into force under Circular/letter No. 17-30/2019 dated 14.02.2020. However, the articles of charge dated 05.03.2020 was issued under Rule 10 of 2011 Rules. Rule 10 of 2011 Rules reads as follows: “10. Procedure for imposing a penalty.- (1) No order imposing a penalty shall be passed except after – (a) the Sevak is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegation on which it is proposed to be taken and given an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make; and (b) such representation, if any, is taken into consideration by the Recruiting Authority: 17 Provided that the penalty of dismissal or removal from engagement shall not be imposed except after an enquiry in which he 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 an'/ such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence' adduced during such enquiry. (2) The record of proceedings shall include- (i) a copy of the intimation to the Sevak of the proposal to take action against him: (ii) a copy of the statement of allegations, along with a list of evidence in support thereof, communicated to him; (iii) his representation, if any; (iv) the records of the enquiry proceedings along with the enquiry 18 report of the Recruiting Authority or Enquiry Officer, if any, appointed in a case where a formal enquiry is necessary; (v) the representation, if any, of the Sevak on the lnquiry Officer's report; (vi) findings of the Recruiting Authority in respect of the allegations' with reasons therefor; and (vii) the order imposing the penalty.” 12. In 2020 Rules, Rule 10 is replaced by Rule 10A, 10B, 10C and 10D. The relevant Rule for the present purpose would be Rule 10A, 10B and 10D which read as follows: “10—A. Procedure for imposing Minor penalty:- (i) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in Clause (i) to (v) of Bule 9 shall be passed on a GDS except after:- 19 (a) The Sevak is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him./her and of the allegation on which it is proposed to be taken and given an opportunity to make any representation he/she may wish to make; and (b) such representation, if any, is taken into consideration by the engaging Authority. 10-B. Procedure for imposing Major Penalty:- (i) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clause (vi) to (ix) of Rule 9 shall be passed on a GDS except after:- (a) The Sevak is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him/her and of the allegation on which it is proposed to be taken and given an opportunity to make any representation he/she may wish to make; and 20 (b) such representation, if any, is taken into consideration by the Engaging Authority. Provided that, the major penalty shall not be imposed except after an inquiry in which he/she has been informed of the charges against him/her and has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges; Provided further that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him/her any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry. 10.C. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 10-D. Inquiry has to be conducted even if the GDS accepts the charges in the cases where major penalty is to be imposed by Engaging Authority. The purpose of holding inquiry in such cases is primarily to give the GDS adequate opportunity to defend himself/herself. In case the charge is accepted by him/her unconditionally, there would 21 obviously be no need for an inquiry for imposing major penalty.” 13. In terms of Rule 10 of 2011 Rules, order of penalty shall be passed only after Sevak is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and all the allegations on which, it is proposed to be taken, giving an opportunity to make any representation and on considering such representation, punishment could be imposed. However, the proviso requires an enquiry for imposition of penalty of dismissal or removal from engagement, after giving such Sevak a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. While under Rule 10A, 10B and 10D of 2020 Rules, order of penalty could be passed after informing the Sevak in writing of the proposal to take action on the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken, giving an opportunity to make representation and on consideration of such representation, the proviso would require enquiry for imposing major penalty, 22 after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the charges. However, Rule 10D makes it abundantly clear that the enquiry has to be conducted even if the GDS accepts the charges in the cases where major penalty is to be imposed, but it also provides for dispensing the enquiry where the charge is unconditionally accepted. 14. In other words, under 2011 Rules or under 2020 Rules, conducting of enquiry on the alleged charges would be necessary for imposing major penalty of removal or dismissal except under the situation where the Dak Sevak accepted the charges and acceptance of charge is unconditional. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has imposed major penalty of removal on the petitioner. Admittedly, though Enquiry Officer is appointed, he has not recorded any evidence and submitted his report recording that the delinquent official i.e., 23 petitioner herein has admitted all the articles of charge. Mere admission of charge would not be sufficient to dispense conducting of enquiry by recording evidence. Admission or acceptance of charge by the delinquent official shall be unconditional or unequivocal. Rule 10D of 2020 Rules also requires conducting of enquiry even if the Dak Sevak accepts the charges except where the charge is accepted unconditionally. Moreover, while imposing major penalty of removal or dismissal, enquiry would be necessary since it would affect the livelihood of Dak Sevak. 15. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge memo on 25.04.2020 and letter dated 18.08.2020 before the Enquiry Officer, wherein he has stated that mistakes happened at Baliganahalli are not intentional and were happened beyond his reach. The said statement at any stretch cannot be considered as 24 acceptance of charge unequivocally. It was for the Enquiry Officer in the teeth of above statement to record a finding that mistake of paying e-Money Orders with the knowledge of death of such persons is intentional based on the material that would be placed before him, but after holding an enquiry as contemplated in Rules supra. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P.No.24376/2016 (P.Pandian V/S Union of India and others D.D. on 15.09.2016) to contend that where the delinquent Gramin Dak Sevak accepts or admits charge, no enquiry would be necessary. In the said case, though penalty of removal was imposed on the Dak Sevak, on issuance of charge memo under Rule 10 of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2001 there is no consideration as to whether enquiry was necessary under Rule 10 or not. 25 In the above circumstances, the same would have no application to the present case, where the petitioner has raised a specific question as to whether the enquiry would be necessary while imposing major penalty even though Dak Sevak admits the charge. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ROOP SING NEGI VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS (2009) 2 SCC 570 was considering a case of dismissal of a Peon in Punjab National Bank where the Enquiry Officer held that the charge against the delinquent official was proved on the basis of his confession made in a criminal proceedings. In the said circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that a departmental proceedings is a quasi judicial proceedings and the Enquiry Officer performs the quasi judicial function. It is also held that confession should have been proved by bringing on record some 26 evidence. At paragraph 15, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows: “15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left.” 18. In the case on hand also the confession or acceptance of guilt by the petitioner was not categorical or unequivocal. The misappropriation of 27 e-Money Orders towards social security pensions of the dead persons ought to have been proved by placing some evidence on record. 19. For the reasons recorded above, the order dated 02.06.2023 in O.A.No.170/00392/2021 (Annexure-A) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru is set aside. O.A.No. 170/00392/2021 is allowed to the extent of quashing the impugned order of penalty dated 12.11.2020 (Annexure-A11). The appellate order dated 18.01.2021 in Appeal No.SK/STA/9-3/31/2020/I and revisional order dated 09.07.2021 bearing Memo No.SK/STA/9-5/03/2021/II are also quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Enquiry Officer to continue the enquiry from the stage of recording evidence in the enquiry and submit a report to the Disciplinary Authority and thereafter the Disciplinary 28 Authority shall pass an appropriate order based on the Enquiry Officer’s report. Backwages and all other consequential benefits to the petitioner/applicant would depend on the outcome of the enquiry and order that would be passed subsequent to enquiry. The petitioner would be deemed to be under suspension and would be entitled for subsistence allowance from the date of this order till completion of enquiry, as directed above. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MPK/NC CT: bms