Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Umesh Chandra Panda vs Department Of Posts on 13 February, 2026
1 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.Nos. 260/00110, 253, 257, 258, 289, 293, 294, 295, 297,
300, 301, 302, 304, 309, 310, 311, 312, 323, 375, 376, 402, 403,
521, 562, 743 of 2024
Reserved on 29.01.2026 Pronounced on 13.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
O.A.No. 260/00311 of 2024
Bichitrananda Patra, aged 55 years, S/o. Late Arta Patra,
Vill:Marthapur, Po: Bhanra Nizigarh BO, Via:Banamalipur,
PS:Balipatna, Dist:Khurda, now working as ABPM(MD/MC)
Bhanra Nizigarh BO in account with Banamalipur SO under
Bhubaneswar Postal Division, Dist: Khurda (Gr-D).
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Director General Posts,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda: 751001.
3. Asst. Superintendent of Post offices l/c, Bhubaneswar
North Sub Division, Bhubaneswar-751007
4. Sri Debadutta Jena, ASP (I/C), Khurda Sub Division, Dist-
Khurda-752055.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. D.K.Mohanty, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. J.K.Nayak, Counsel
O.A.No. 260/00110 of 2024
Sarat Kumar Mansingh, S/o Late Chaitanya Mansingh, aged
61 years, Vill/PO- Biribadi, Via- Kuhudi, PS- Tangi, Dist-
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.16
10:03:56 +05'30'
2 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases
Khurda, now working as GDS BPM, Biribadi BO under
Bhubaneswar Postal Division.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Director General Posts,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda: 751001.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack South Division,
Cantonment Road, Cuttack-752001.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. D.K.Mohanty, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. R.S.Patnaik, Counsel
O.A.No. 260/00253 of 2024
Sasmita Nayak, aged about 46 years, W/o. Narendra Kumar
Biswal GDS Branch Postmaster, Kheranga BO, i/a/w
Pirahat Bazar Sub Post Office, Dist- Bhadrak, R/o. At-
Kuansh Jena Sahi, P.S.- Bhadrak Town Po/Dist. Bhadrak.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Director General Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda: 752001.
3. Superintendent of Post offices, Bhadrak Division, Bhadrak,
Dist-Bhadrak- 756100.
4. Assistant Superintendent of Posts (OD), O/o-
Superintendent of Posts Offices, Bhadrak Division,
Bhadrak, At/PO/Dist-Bhadrak- 756100.
......Respondents
For the applicant : M/s. A.Rout, S.Patra Counsel
For the respondents : Dr. C.R.Mishra, Counsel
O.A.No. 260/00257 of 2024
Kamalakanta Jena, aged about 61 years, S/o. Baidhara Jena,
GDS Branch Postmaster, Jalamandua BO, i/a/w Barikpur
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.16
10:03:56 +05'30'
3 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases
Bazar Sub Post Office, Dist- Bhadrak, R/o. At/PO-
Jalamandua, Via-Barikpur Bazar, Dist. Bhadrak.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Director General Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda: 752001.
3. Superintendent of Post offices, Bhadrak Division, Bhadrak,
Dist-Bhadrak- 756100.
4. Assistant Superintendent of Posts (OD), O/o-
Superintendent of Posts Offices, Bhadrak Division,
Bhadrak, At/PO/Dist-Bhadrak- 756100.
......Respondents
For the applicant : M/s. A.Rout, S.Patra Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. A.C.Deo, Counsel
O.A.No. 260/00258 of 2024
Bijaya Kumar Pahi, aged about 57 years, S/o. Bimbadhar
Pahi, Branch Postmaster, Naami BO, i/a/w Manjuri Road
Sub Post Office, Dist- Bhadrak, R/o. At/PO- Naami, Via-
Manjuri Raod, Dist. Bhadrak.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Director General Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda: 752001.
3. Superintendent of Post offices, Bhadrak Division, Bhadrak,
Dist-Bhadrak- 756100.
4. Assistant Superintendent of Posts (I/C), Bhadrak Central
Sub- Division, Bhadrak, At/PO/Dist-Bhadrak- 756100.
......Respondents
For the applicant : M/s. A.Rout, S.Patra Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. A.C.Deo, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.16
10:03:56 +05'30'
4 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases
O.A.No. 260/00289 of 2024
Bidyadhar Sahoo, aged about 45 years, S/o. Banamali
Sahoo, Dak Seva, Asurali Sub Post Office, Dist-Bhadrak, R/o.
At/PO- Bandhatia, PS- Dhamnagar, Dist. Bhadrak.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Director General Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda: 752001.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhadrak Division, Bhadrak,
Dist-Bhadrak- 756100.
4. Assistant Superintendent of Posts (I/C), Bhadrak Central
Sub- Division-cum-Inquiry Authority, Bhadrak, At/PO/Dist-
Bhadrak- 756100.
5. Inspector of Posts, Bhadrak East Sub- Division, At/PO/Dist-
Bhadrak- 756100.
......Respondents
For the applicant : M/s. A.Rout, S.Patra Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. R.K.Sahoo, Counsel
O.A.No. 260/00293 of 2024
Bhanja Kishore Sahoo, aged about 50 years, S/o. Late
Sadhu Charan Sahoo, GDS BPM, Sasanipada BO, i/a/w
Marshaghai Sub Post Office, Dist- Kendrapara, R/o. At/PO-
Sasanipada, Dist. Kendrapara.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Director General Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda: 752001.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Kendrapara Division,
Kendrapara, Dist- Kendrapara-754211.
......Respondents
For the applicant : M/s. A.Rout, S.Patra Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.16
10:03:56 +05'30'
5 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases
For the respondents : Ms. S.B.Das, Counsel
O.A.No. 260/00294 of 2024
Ashok Kumar Panda, aged about 60 years, S/o. Kasinatha
Panda, GDS BPM, Chandan Nagar BO, i/a/w Alba Sub Post
Office, Dist- Kendrapara, R/o. At/PO- Chandan Nagar, Dist.
Kendrapara.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Director General Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda: 752001.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Kendrapara Division,
Kendrapara, Dist- Kendrapara-754211.
......Respondents
For the applicant : M/s. A.Rout, S.Patra Counsel
For the respondents : Ms. S.B.Das, Counsel
O.A.No. 260/00295 of 2024
Karunakar Behera, aged about 63 years, S/o. Mulalidhara
Behera, GDS BPM, Gopei BO, i/a/w Karilopatana Sub Post
Office, Dist- Kendrapara, R/o. At/PO- Gopei, Dist.
Kendrapara.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Director General Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda: 752001.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Kendrapara Division,
Kendrapara, Dist- Kendrapara-754211.
......Respondents
For the applicant : M/s. A.Rout, S.Patra Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. B.Samantaray, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.16
10:03:56 +05'30'
6 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases
O.A.No. 260/00297 of 2024
Bijaya Kishore Das, aged about 60 years, S/o. Late Golak
Chandra Das, GDS BPM, Bharatpur BO, i/a/w Karilopatana
Sub Post Office, Dist- Kendrapara, R/o. At/PO- Bharatpur,
Dist. Kendrapara.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Director General Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda: 752001.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Kendrapara Division,
Kendrapara, Dist- Kendrapara-754211.
......Respondents
For the applicant : M/s. A.Rout, S.Patra Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. C.R.Behera, Counsel
O.A.No. 260/00300 of 2024
Duryodhan Behera, aged about 54 years, S/o. Krutibas
Behera, GDS Branch Postmaster. Gandghora BO, i.a.w.
Brajarajnagar MDG, Dist- Jharsuguda, R/o. At-A Nuadihi,
PO- Gandghora, Dist. - Jharsuguda-768216.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India Represented through its Director General of
Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist. Khurda - 751001.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Sundargarh Division,
Sundargarh, Dist-Sundargarh-770001.
4. Assistant Superintendent of Posts (OD), O/o Sr.
Superintendent of Post Offices, Sundargarh Division,
Sundargarh, At/PO/Dist-Sundargarh-770001.
......Respondents
For the applicant : M/s. A.Rout, S.Patra, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. A.C.Deo, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.16
10:03:56 +05'30'
7 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases
O.A.No. 260/00301 of 2024
Lipun Dandapat, aged about 26 years, S/o. Bidyadhar
Dandapat, ABPM, andghora BO, i/a/w Brajarajnagar, MDG,
Dist- Sundargarh, RO- At/PO-Rajadang, PS- Khamar, Dist.
Angul.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Director General Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda: 752001.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Sundargarh Division,
Sundargarh, Dist-Sundargarh-770001.
4. Inspector of Posts, Jharsuguda Sub-Division, At/Po/Dist-
Jharsuguda-768201.
5. Inspector of Posts, Sundargarh North Division, Sundargarh,
At/PO/Dist- Sundargarh-770001.
......Respondents
For the applicant : M/s. A.Rout, S.Patra Counsel
For the respondents : Ms. R.L.Biswal, Counsel
O.A.No. 260/00302 of 2024
Thakit Chandra Bahera, aged about 52 years, S/o. Jadumani
Behera, ABPM, Arda BO, i/a/w Kalimandir Road SO under
Jharsuguda HO, Dist- Jharsuguda, R/o At/PO- Arda, PS-
Likera, Dist. Jharsuguda.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Director General Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda: 752001.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Sundargarh Division,
Sundargarh, Dist-Sundargarh-770001.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.16
10:03:56 +05'30'
8 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases
4. Inspector of Posts, Jharsuguda Sub-Division, At/Po/Dist-
Jharsuguda-768201.
5. Inspector of Posts, Kuchinda Sub Division, Kuchinda,
At/PO- Kuchinda, Dist Sambalpur-768222.
......Respondents
For the applicant : M/s. A.Rout, S.Patra Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. S.K.Pradhan, Counsel
O.A.No. 260/00304 of 2024
Biswajit Pattanayak, aged about 56 years, S/o-Late
Krushna Mohan Patnaik, Vill/PO- Janla, PS- Info vally-2,
Dist. Khurda-752054, now working as I/c GDSBPM,
Kaimatia BO under Janla SO under Bhubaneswar Postal
Division, Khurda (Gr.D).
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Director General Posts,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda: 751001.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhubaneswar Division,
Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda-751009.
4. Sri M.K.Dash, ASP I/c-cum-IO, Bhubaneswar Sub Division,
Bhubaneswar-751007.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. D.K.Mohanty, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. D.R.Swain, Counsel
O.A.No. 260/00309 of 2024
Sushil Kumar Nayak, aged about 50 years, S/o. Sarat
Chandra Nayak, GDS Branch Postmaster, Kindira BO, i.a.w
Kuchinda MDG, Dist- Jharsuguda, R/o, At/PO- Kindira, P.S.-
Kuchinda, Dist. Sambalpur-768222.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India Represented through its Director General of
Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.16
10:03:56 +05'30'
9 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist. Khurda - 751001.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Sundargarh Division,
Sundargarh, Dist-Sundargarh-770001.
4. Inspector of Posts, Sundargarh South Sub-Division,
Sundargarh At/Po/Dist-Sundargarh-770001.
......Respondents
For the applicant : M/s. A.Rout, S.Patra, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. B.N.Swain, Counsel
O.A.No. 260/00310 of 2024
Harsaram Patel, aged about 63 years, S/o. Harachand Patel,
Dak Sevak (PKR), Ujalpur SO, Dist- Sundargarh, R/o. At-
Aranya Nagar Town, P.S.- Sundargarh Town, Dist.
Sundargarh-770002.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India Represented through its Director General of
Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist. Khurda - 751001.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Sundargarh Division,
Sundargarh, Dist-Sundargarh-770001.
4. Inspector of Posts, Sundargarh South Sub-Division,
At/Po/Dist-Sundargarh.
5. Inspector of Posts Sundargarh North Division, Sundargarh,
At/Po/Dist-Sundargarh-770001.
......Respondents
For the applicant : M/s. A.Rout, S.Patra, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. R.S.Pattnaik, Counsel
O.A.No. 260/00312 of 2024
Babaji Charan Swain, aged about 62 years, S/o.
Dharmananda Swain, Dak Sevak, Rangadhipa SO, Dist-
Sundargarh, R/o. At- Meheshdihi, PS- Sundargarh Town,
Dist. Sundargarh-770001.
......Applicant
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.16
10:03:56 +05'30'
10 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases
VERSUS
1. Union of India Represented through its Director General of
Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist. Khurda - 751001.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Sundargarh Division,
Sundargarh, Dist-Sundargarh-770001.
4. Inspector of Posts, Sundargarh South Sub-Division,
At/Po/Dist-Sundargarh.
5. Inspector of Posts, Sundargarh North Division, Sundargarh,
At/Po/Dist-Sundargarh-770001.
......Respondents
For the applicant : M/s. A.Rout, S.Patra, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. A.Mishra, Counsel
O.A.No. 260/00323 of 2024
Ramesh Chandra Munda, aged about 37 years, S/o Bhubana
Munda, At present working as ABPM (GDS MD/MC)
Darkundi B.O in account with Rasulpur S.O under Jajpur
H.O., Jajpur Postal Division, Address: Village-Kainchisason,
PO- Madhubanhat, P.S-Kuakhia, Dist-Jajpur-755051.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India Ministry of Communications, Dept. of Posts,
represented through its Secretary, Dept. of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist. Khurda - 751001.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Jajpur Division, Jajpur-
760001.
4. Inspector of Posts, Dharamsala Sub-Division, Dharmasala,
Dist- Jajpur-755008.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.B.Jena, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. A.K.Rath, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.16
10:03:56 +05'30'
11 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases
O.A.No. 260/00375 of 2024
Bishnupada Panda, aged about 62 years, S/o. late Satyaban
Panda, Dak Sevak (GDS PKR), Nampo Sub Post Office under
Jaleswar HO now working as Dak Sevak (MD), Nampo SO,
Dist-Balasore, R/o- At/PO- Nampo, PS- Jaleswar, dist-
Balasore.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Director General Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda: 752001.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Balasore Division, Balasore,
Dist-Balasore-756100.
4. Inspector of Posts, Jaleswar (East) Sub-Division, Jaleswar,
At/PO- Jaleswar, Dist-Balasore-756032.
......Respondents
For the applicant : M/s. A.Rout, S.Patra, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. J.K.Nayak, Counsel
O.A.No. 260/00376 of 2024
Manas Ranjan Patra, aged about 44 years, S/o. Duta Patra,
GDS BPM, Beheragam BO, i/a/w Tikabali Sub Post Office,
Dist- Kandhamal, R/o. At-Katimaha, PO- Salapagaon, Dist.-
Kandhamal.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Director General Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda: 752001.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Phulbani Division,
Phulbani, Dist- Kandhamal-762001.
......Respondents
For the applicant : M/s. A.Rout, S.Patra Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. D.R.Swain, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.16
10:03:56 +05'30'
12 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases
O.A.No. 260/00402 of 2024
Mamata Behera, aged about 38 years, W/o- Niladri Bihari
Jena, Vill- Bikipur, PO-Itipur, Via-Old town BBSR, PS_
Dhauli, Dist. Khurda, now working as ABPM (MD/MC)
Sagada BO in account with Rench SO under Puri HO under
Puri Postal Division, Puri (Gr-D).
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Director General Posts,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda: 751001.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Puri Division, Puri-
752001.
4. Inspector of Posts, Nimapara Sub Division, Niomapara-
752106, Khurda.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. D.K.Mohanty, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. R.K.Sahoo, Counsel
O.A.No. 260/00403 of 2024
Pitambar Mohapatra, aged about 55 years, S/o- Gobinda
Chandra Mohapatra, Vill/PO- Bijayramachandrapur, Via-
Chandanpur, PS- Chandanpur, Dist- Puri, now posted as
ABPM (MD) Junei BO (working as BPM Junei BO) in account
with Konark SO under Piri HO under Puri Postal Division,
Puri.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Director General Posts,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda: 751001.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Puri Division, Puri-
752001.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.16
10:03:56 +05'30'
13 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases
4. Inspector of Posts, Nimapara Sub Division, Niomapara-
752106.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. D.K.Mohanty, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. D.R.Swain, Counsel
O.A.No. 260/00521 of 2024
Debendra Kumar Dhal, aged about 58 years, S/o. late
Brahmananda Dhal, GDS Branch Postmaster,
Oleichandanpur BO, i/a/w Singhpur Sub Post Office, Dist-
Jajpur, R/o- At- Oleichandanpur, PS- Binjharpur Dist.
Jajpur.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Director General Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda: 752001.
3. Superintendent of Post offices, Jajpur Division, Jajpur, Dist-
Jajpur- 755001.
4. Sri Ananta Kumar Satpathy, IO cum OS RMS 'N' Division,
Cuttack-75300
......Respondents
For the applicant : M/s. A.Rout, S.Patra, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. S.K.Pradhan, Counsel
O.A.No. 260/00562 of 2024
Umesh Chandra Panda, aged about 58 years, S/o- Late
Golakh Chandra Panda, Vill/PO- Taratsasan, Via-
Asureswar, PS- Nemalo, Dist- Cuttack, now posted as
GDSBPM, Taratsasan BO, i.a.w. Asureswar SO under
Chandini Chowk HO under Cuttack City Postal Division (Gr-
D).
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Director General Posts,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.16
10:03:56 +05'30'
14 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda: 751001.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack City Division,
Cuttack -1.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. D.K.Mohanty, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. B.Samantaray, Counsel
O.A.No. 260/00743 of 2024
Parmanada Dash, aged about 54 years, S/o. Balaram Dash,
GDS Branch Postmater, Jadichatar BO, i/a/w Rajnagar SO,
Dist. Keonjhar, R/o At/PO- Jadichatar, PS- Turumunga, Dist.
Keonjhar.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Director General Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda: 752001.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Keonjhar Division,
Keonjhar, Dist. Keonjhar-758001.
4. Sri SR. Satapathy, IA-cum-Inspector of Post Offices,
Keonjhar (West) Sub-Division, Keonjhargarh-758001.
......Respondents
For the applicant : M/s. A.Rout, S.Patra, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. R.S.Pattnaik, Counsel
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
All these OAs, numbered as 110, 253, 257, 258, 289, 293, 294, 295, 297, 300, 301, 302, 304, 309, 310, 311, 312, 323, 375, 376, 402, 403, 521, 562 and 743 of 2024, were heard analogously RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 15 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases since the facts, issues and question of law involved in all the OAs are almost similar. Ld. Counsel for the parties put their arguments separately in course of hearing. For the sake of brevity, this common order is passed, which will govern all these OAs. The facts in OA No. 311 of 2024 are delineated hereunder for adjudication of all the cases.
2. The applicant is working as ABPM (MD/MC), Bhanra Nizigarh BO in account with Banamalipur SO under Bhubaneswar Postal Division, Dist. Khurda. Disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him under Rule 10(B) [major penalty] Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020 vide Memorandum dated 23.12.2023 on the allegation that he remained unauthorized absent for the period from 12.12.2023 to 15.12.2023 without any intimation to the competent authority and, participated in the strike, in disobeying the order of the higher authorities, which amounts to grave misconduct and violation of Rule 23 of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020. He did not perform his duty for the period from 12.12.2023 to 15.12.2023 is also taken as one of the allegations in the said charge sheet. The applicant filed this OA seeking to quash RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 16 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases the charge sheet dt. 23.12.2023 and appointment of IO & PO vide order dated 01.04.2024.
3. In course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against many of the GDS employees on the same and similar grounds. They challenged the same before this Bench in OA Nos. 260/00100, 106, 111, 112, 142, 178, 179, 225, 246, 374 and 741 of 2024 wherein this Bench after a detailed discussion and deliberations quashed the proceedings vide common order dated 17.11.2025. The aforesaid order of this Bench has not been reviewed, stayed or quashed by any higher court. The initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the present applicant being on the same set of allegations of participating in strike, the applicant is entitled to same relief and the impugned orders in his case are also liable to be quashed.
4. In course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the respondents reiterated the factual matrix pointed out in the counter filed by the respondents contesting and opposing the prayer of the applicant. He also by drawing our attention to the allegations contained in Article IV, has tried to distinguish the cases already decided by this Bench, RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 17 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases noted above, to that of the present case by stating that the applicant "also involved himself in obstructing conveyance of mails in different pales at Bhubaneswar Division with agitating GDS employees", which is clear violation of the provision of rules. It is also stated that the decided matters cannot be taken as a precedent so as to grant the relief to the present applicant since the earlier decision was rendered by this Bench without taking into consideration, the significant decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court holding that a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. The relevant portion of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, cited and quoted by him in the notes of argument, are reproduced below:
(a) UOI and Anr. Vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana, AIR 2007 SC 906:
It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another AIR 1987 SC 943 etc.....
RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 18 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases
(b) Transport Commissioner, Madras- Vs A.Radha Krishna Moorthy, (1995) 1 SCC 332:
7. So far as the truth and correctness of the charges is concerned, it was not a matter for the Tribunal to go into-more particularly at a stage prior to the conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry. As pointed out by this Court repeatedly, even when the matter comes to the Tribunal after the imposition of punishment, it has no jurisdiction to go into truth of the allegations/charges except in a case where they are based on no evidence i.e., where they are perverse. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is akin to that of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is power of judicial review.
It only examines the procedural correctness of the decision-making- process. For this reason the order of the Tribunal insofar as it goes into or discusses the truth and correctness of the charges, is unsustainable in law.
(c) UOI & Ors Vs Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCCC 357:
5. The said statement of law was expressly affirmed by a seven- Judge Bench in Ujjam Bai v. State of Up.4 The reason for this dictum is selfevident. If we do not keep to the broad and fundamental principles that regulate the exercise of jurisdiction in the matter of granting such writs in 3 (1955) 1 SCR 250: AIR 1954 SC 440 4 AIR 1962 SC 1621, 1625 English law, the exercise of jurisdiction becomes rudderless and unguided,it tends to become arbitrary and capricious. There will be no uniformity of approach and there will be the danger of the jurisdiction becoming personalized. The parameters of jurisdiction would vary from Judge to Judge and from Court to Court. (Some say, this has already happened.) Law does advance. Jurisprudence does undoubtedly develop with the passage of time, but not by forgetting the fundamentals. You have to build upon the existing foundations and not by abandoning them. It leads to confusion; it does not assist in coherence in thought or action.
6. In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the tribunal or court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to court or tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be. The function of the court/tribunal is one of judicial review, the parameters of which are RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 19 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases repeatedly laid down by this Court. It would be sufficient to quote the decision in H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Assessing Authority, Kamal v. Gopi Nath & Sons5. The Bench comprising M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as he then was) and A.M. Ahmadi, J., affirmed the principle thus : (SCC p. 317, para 8) "Judicial review, it is trite, is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. Judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorized by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that the Court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself."
7. Now, if a court cannot interfere with the truth or correctness of the charges even in a proceeding against the final order, it is ununderstandable how can that be done by the tribunal at the stage of framing of charges? In this case, the Tribunal has held that the charges are not sustainable (the finding that no culpability is alleged and no corrupt motive attributed), not on the basis of the articles of charges and the statement of imputations but 5 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312 mainly on the basis of the material produced by the respondent before it, as we shall presently indicate.
(d) Secretary, Ministry of Defence and ors Vs Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565;
11. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a chargesheet or show cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, chargesheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a chargesheet or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. (Vide : State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, AIR 1987 SC 943; Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh & Ors., (1996) 1 SCC 327; Ulagappa & Ors. v. Div. Commr., Mysore & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3603 (2); Special Director & Anr. v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse & Anr., AIR 2004 SC RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 20 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases 1467; and Union of India & Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, AIR 2007 SC 906).
12. In State of Orissa & Anr. v. Sangram Keshari Misra & Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 311, this Court held that normally a chargesheet is not quashed prior to the conclusion of the enquiry on the ground that the facts stated in the charge are erroneous for the reason that correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority.
(See also: Union of India & Ors. v. Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCC
357).
13. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that chargesheet cannot generally be a subject matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the chargesheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings.
(e) State of Bihar and another Vs P.P.Sharma and another, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 222:
It is a settled law that the person against whom mala fides or bias was imputed should be impleaded eo-nominee as a party respondent to the proceedings and given an opportunity to meet those allegations. In his/her absence no enquiry into those allegation would be made. Otherwise it itself is violative of the principles of natural justice as it amounts to condemning a person without an opportunity. Admittedly, both R.K. Singh and G.N. Sharma were not impleaded. On this ground alone the High Court should have stopped enquiry into the allegation of mala fides or bias alleged against them.
(f) T.K.Rangarajan Vs Govt. of Tamil Nady & Ors, AI 2003 SC 3032:
"Para 12-Now coming to the question of right to strike-whether fundamental, statutory or equitable/moral right- In our view no such right exists with govt. employees to strike. There is no fundamental right to go on strike whether fundamental, statutory, or an equitable right.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 21 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases Para 13- Law on this subject is well settled that it has been repeatedly held by this court that the employees have no fundamental right to resort to strike. In Kameswar Prasad Vs State of Bihar, 1962 Supp 3 SCR -p-369, this court (CB) held that the rule in so far as it prohibited strikes was valid since there is no fundamental right to resort to strike.
(g) All India Bank Employees Association Vs National Industrial Tribunal & Ors, 1962 3 SCR 269:
Even very liberal interpretation of sub clause C of clause (1) of Art. 19 cannot lead to the conclusion that the trade unions have a guaranteed right to strike, either as part of collective bargaining or other wise. There is no statutory provision empowering the employees to go on strike.
5. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has prayed for dismissal of this OA. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the applicant contested the submissions for the respondents by stating that even on examination of the decisions relied on by the respondents vis a vis the grounds based on which this Bench of the Tribunal allowed the OAs, it will be established that there is no flaw in the decision taken in earlier OAs requiring for this Bench to take a different view in the instant case. The relevant texts of the decision of this Bench dated 17.11.2025 in O.A. Nos. 260/00100, 106, 111, 112, 142, 178, 179, 225, 246, 374 and 741 of 2024 are extracted below:
"8. We have perused the charges leveled against the applicants. We find that in all the cases the allegations and statement of imputations are almost one and the same. For proper visualization Article of charge enclosed to one of the OAs, i.e. OA No. 741/2024 is extracted hereunder:
RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 22 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases "ARTICLE-I That Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta, ABPM, Bholagadia BO in account with Chitrada S.O presently working as GDSMD/MC Nuagaon Chhotraypur BO in account with Morada SO, while working as such during the period from 20.05.1999 till date was found unauthorised absent from duty w.e.f 12.12.2023. As per APMG(Inv), O/o CPMG, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar letter No. Inv/30- 11/Misc/2023 dated 04.12.2023, it was instructed not to sanction special casual leave or other kind of leave to employees if applied for, during the period of the proposed strike/Dharna/demonstration and ensure that the willing employees are allowed hindrance-free entries into the office premises. Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta was required to be on duty, but Sri Mohanta did not pay any heed to the communications and continued to remain absent unauthorisedly. He did not submit application for any kind of leave nor any leave was granted to him by the competent authority during the above period. The SPM Morada SO intimated the fact to the ASP l/c, Baripada Central Sub-Division. The ASP Baripada Central Sub- Division has intimated the same to SPOs Mayurbhanj Division through strike report for the period from 12.12.2023 to 15.12.2023.
As such Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta in the capacity of GDSMD/MC Nuagaon Chhotraypur BO has remained unauthorisedly absent and thereby violated Rule-50 of Rules for Branch Offices Eighth Edition corrected up to 28 September, 2007.
Therefore, it is imputed that the said Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta as GDSMD/MC, Nuagaon Chhotraypur BO has failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner of which is unbecoming of a Sevak, as enjoined in Rule 21 (ii) and (iii) of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020.
ARTICLE-II That Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta, ABPM, Bholagadia B.O in account with Chitrada S.O presently working as GDSMD/MC Nungaon Chhotraypur BO in account with Morada SO, while working as such during the period from 20.05.1999 till date was found unauthorised absent from duty w.e.f 12.12.2023. As per APMG(Inv), O/o CPMG, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar letter No. Inv/30- 11/Misc/2023 dated 04.12.2023 it was instructed not to sanction special casual leave or other kind of leave to employees if applied for, during the period of the RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 23 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases proposed strike/Dharna/ demonstration and ensure that the willing employees are allowed hindrance-free entries into the office premises. Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta was addressed vide ASP l/c, Baripada Central Sub Division letter No. ASP Central/Strike/Con, dated 15.12.2023 to report duty immediately falling which action as deemed fit will be initiated against him. The ASP l/c Baripada Central Sub Division has also communicated the said communication through the whatsapp group of Baripada Central Sub-Division to Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta, but Sri Mohanta did not care to respond the said communications of the ASP I/c Baripada Central Sub-Divn and did not report to duty.
As Shri Braja Kishore Mohanta GDSMD/MC did not perform his duty during the period from 12.12.2023 to 15.12.2023 as required of him the general public were deprived of the postal services meant for Nuagaon Chhotraypur BO for the said dates. Letters meant for Nuagaon Chhotraypur BO were held up at Morada SO due to unauthorised absence of Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta. Had Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta intimated the ASP I/c Baripada Central Sub-Division about his absence from duty on 12.12.2023, the ASP I/c Baripada Central Sub-Division could have made alternate arrangement for smooth functioning of Nuagaon Chhotraypur on those dates.
As such Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta, in the capacity of GDSMD/MC Nuagaon Chhotraypur BO under Morada SO has violated provisions of Rule-66, 86 of Rules for Branch Offices Eighth Edition corrected up to 28 September, 2007.
Therefore, it is imputed that the said Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta as GDSMD/MC Nuagaon Chhotraypur, BO has failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner of which is unbecoming of a Sevak, as enjoined in Rule 21 (ii) and (ili) of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020.
ARTICLE-III That Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta, ABPM, Bholagadia B.O in account with Chitrada S.O presently working as GDSMD/MC Nuagaon Chhotraypur BO in account with Morada SO, while working as such during the period from 20.05.1999 till date was found unauthorised absent from duty w.e.f 12.12.2023. As per APMG (Inv), O/o CPMG, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar letter No. Inv/30- RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 24 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases 11/Misc/2023 dated 04.12.2023 it was instructed not to sanction special casual leave or other kind of leave to employees if applied for, during the period of the proposed strike/Dharna/demonstration and ensure that the willing employees are allowed hindrance-free entries into the office premises. Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta was addressed vide ASP I/c, Baripada Central Sub Division letter No. ASP Central/Strike/Con. dated 15.12.2023 to report to duty immediately failing which action as deemed fit will be initiated against him. The ASP I/c Baripada Central Sub-Divn has also communicated the said communication through the whatsapp group of Baripada Central sub-division to Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta, but Sri Mohanta did not care to respond the said communications of ASP I/c Baripada Central Sub-Divn and did not report to duty.
As such Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta, in the capacity of GDSMD/MC Nuagaon Chhotraypur BO under Morada SO disobeyed the orders of his Superior authority. Therefore, it is imputed that the said Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta as GDSMD/MC, Nuagaon Chhotraypur BO has failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner of which is unbecoming of a Sevak, as enjoined in Rule 21 (ii) and (iii) of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020.
ARTICLE IV That Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta, ABPM, Bholagadia B.O in account with Chitrada SO presently working as GDSMD/MC Nuagaon Chhotraypur BO in account with Morada SO, while working as such during the period from 20.05.1999 was found unauthorised absent from duty w.e.f 12.12.2023. As per APMG (Inv), O/o CPMG, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar letter No. Inv/30-11/Misc/2023 dated 04.12.2023 it was instructed not to sanction special casual leave or other kind of leave to employees if applied for, during the period of the proposed strike/Dharna/demonstration and ensure that the willing employees are allowed hindrance-free entries into the office premises. Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta was addressed vide ASP I/c, Baripada Central Sub Division letter No. ASP Central/Strike/Con. dated 15.12.2033 to report to duty immediately failing which action as deemed fit will be initiated against him. The ASP I/c Baripada Central Sub-Division has also communicated the said communication through the whatsapp group of Baripada RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 25 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases Central sub-division to Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta, but Sri Mohanta did not care to respond the said communications of ASP I/c Baripada Central Sub-Division and did not report to duty. Further Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta instigated other GDS employees to participate in strike through different social media and arranged rallies and meetings for the said strike violating the provisions of Rule-23 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020. Therefore, it is imputed that the said Sri Braja Kishore Mohanta as GDSMD/MC, Nuagaon Chhotraypur BO has failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner of which is unbecoming of a Sevak, as enjoined in Rule 21 (ii) and (iii) of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020."
9. On examination of the allegation made in the Articles and statement of imputation, we fail to notice any such allegation that any of the applicants had resorted to any action of incitement, violence and sabotage, which is a precondition for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the GDS involved in strike apart from curtailing the TRCA. We also noticed that the respondents have led much emphasis in the counter so also in course of hearing that despite due notice, the applicants did not hand over the DARPAN Device, Mobile handset, Stamp, Cash and BO Office Key resulting to closure of the BO depriving the customers to avail the service of the department. But, we find that this aspect of the matter is not one of the allegations in the Article of Charges. Rule 23 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2020 provides as under:
"23. Strikes No Sevak shall resort to or abet any form of strike, coercion or physical duress in connection with any matter pertaining to his/her conditions of engagement or the engagement of any other Sevak. Period of strike shall be treated as under:
(i) The period of strike will not only result in deduction of TRCA for the period of absence during the strike but also break in engagement on account of incitement, violence and sabotage. GDS who resort to action of the above kind violate RuIe 23 of GDS Conduct and Engagement/ Rules, 2020 and disciplinary action can also be taken against them. It may be noted that the list of activities which are covered under the definition of strike as enumerated above is only illustrative and not RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 26 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases exhaustive. It only clarifies the position in respect of practices which are often resorted to at present; (ii) GDS who is absent from engagement hours for participating in the strike shall not be entitled to draw TRCA, DA, bonus, Paid leave TRCA etc;
(iii) The strike period shall not be adjusted or regularised by grant of any kind of leave;
(iv) If, it is specifically ordered by the competent authority after show cause notice on account of incitement, violence and sabotage, the strike period would also result in break in engagement;
(v) The strike period would not qualify towards engagement period for payment of GDS Gratuity, Severance amount at the time of discharge from engagement;
(vi) The strike period would not qualify towards engagement period for absorption of GDS against Multi- Tasking Staff (MTS) posts, which is done on seniority basis;
(vii) The strike period would not qualify towards engagement period of GDS to appear at the LDCE for the cadre of Postal Assistant /Sorting Assistant/Postmen/MailGuard/MultiTasking Staff etc; (viii) The above action as per para (i) to (vii) may also be taken without prejudice to any disciplinary action that may be taken against such GDS."
10. It is also apt to state that interpreting the word "misconduct", the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & others Vs. Ram Singh, Ex-Constable, AIR 1992 SC 2188 (Three-Judge Bench) and the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Rinku alias Hakku Vs. State of UP, 2000(2) AWC 1446 (Allahabad High Court :
Full Bench) have observed thus : "the word `misconduct' though not capable of precise definition, its reflection receives its connotation from the context, the delinquency in its performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. It may involve moral turpitude, it must be improper or wrong behaviour, unlawful behaviour, willful in character, forbidden act, a transgression of established and definite rule of action or code of conduct but not mere error of judgment, carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty, the act complained of bears forbidden quality or character. It's ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 27 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases regard being had to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve." A strike typically refers to a collective refusal by workers to perform their duties as a form of protest against their employer. Strikes are usually aimed at securing better wages, working conditions or other labour rights. A strike by employees is considered a legal right in India, not a fundamental right. While the Constitution guarantees freedom of association, the right to strike itself is not explicitly listed as a fundamental right and is subject to significant legal restrictions and regulations under various statutes like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The unauthorized absence, as alleged, was after putting notice to participate in the strike for achievement of some demand relating to their condition of service and not for any sudden absence without any intimation.
11. It is a well recognized principle that if the law requires something to be done in a particular manner then it must be done in that manner and if it is not done in that manner it would have no existence in the eyes of the law vide paragraph 23 in the case of Krishna Rai (Dead) through LRs and others Vs Banaras Hindu University through Registrar and others, 2022 Live law (SC)
553. We are also reminded by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Supertech Ltd. Vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Ors, (2024) 1 SCC (L&S) 819, wherein the Their Lordships, in no uncertain terms, have been pleased to hold that one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly ["Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum"] and that when a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. Further, our mind is reminiscent to the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus meaning thereby in case a foundation is removed the superstructure falls and quod contra legem fit pro infecto habetur meaning thereby what is done contrary to law is considered not done is a well settled position of law. The dictionary meaning of the words "incitement" is an action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully; "violence" is behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something; and of "Sabotage" is deliberately destroy, damage, or obstruct (something), especially for political or military advantage. As discussed above, neither in the charge sheet nor in the counter there is any whisper that any of the applicants had resorted to incitement, violence and sabotage or any such other activities of RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 28 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases creating hindrance to the general public or to the employees in discharging their normal duties, who intended to work.
12. However, it is alleged that applicants instigated other GDS employees to participate in strike through different social media and arranged rallies and meetings for the said strike violating the provisions of Rule-23 of GDS(Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020 and, that, the applicants participated in the strike by remaining absent from duty unauthorizedly without handing over some of the office articles/Keys for which the customers did not get service and the business of BOs were stopped. Law is well settled that even in a domestic enquiry, the charges must be clear, definite and specific as it would be difficult for any delinquent to meet the vague charges. Evidence adduced should not be obligatory even if the delinquent does not take the defence or make a protest that the charges are vague; that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated for the reason that there must be fair play in action, particularly, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences vide State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR (1963) SC 1723, Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1986) 3 SCC 454 and in Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, (2011) 14 SCC 379. Therefore, keeping in mind the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we have examined the allegations dealt into above. We find that the allegation that 'the applicants instigated other GDS employees to participate in strike through different 'social media' and 'arranged rallies and meetings' for the said strike' is absolutely vague and indefinite because neither any such document relied on in the charge sheet nor there is any mention, who are those GDS employees to whom the applicants instigated to participate in the strike and being instigated they participated in the strike by remaining absent unauthorizedly from duty; when, admittedly, the GDS went on strike demanding fulfillment of their service grievance by the call given by the Union. Similarly, nothing is stated in the charge sheet on what basis the authorities came to the conclusion that the applicants alone arranged rallies and the date, place and time where the meeting was held. We also find that the allegation that the applicants did not hand over the articles/keys of the BO thereby causing dislocation of functioning of the BO is concerned, there is nothing on record to establish that any one was authorized to receive the office articles/Keys of the BO, who went to receive the same from the applicants but the applicants denied to hand over the same. Thus, in absence of the above and on juxtaposing reading of the allegations to the above RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 29 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases extent vis-à-vis the law discussed above, the irresistible conclusion will be that the said allegations are not only vague, indefinite but also based on conjecture and surmises.
13. The Respondents did not produce any such order to evidence that the strike for the period in question has been declared as illegal by the Department; when participating of strike is taken as one of the allegation in the article of strike. The Respondents also deducting the salary for the period of strike. Thus, initiation of disciplinary proceedings on such counts amounts to giving post decisional hearing. Natural justice is a concept of common law and represents higher procedural principles developed by the courts, which every judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative agency must follow while taking any decision adversely affecting the rights of a private individual. The basic principles of natural justice require pre-decisional hearing and not the post-decisional one. A post- decisional hearing is generally not considered a substitute for a pre-decisional hearing and can be a violation of natural justice because the decision-maker may have a closed mind. We are reminded by a decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Hasmukhbhai Thakorebhai Patel & 3 vs Registrar Cooperative Societies, 2017 (4) GLR 2999 wherein it has been observed as under:
"7. In the concept of natural justice comprising opportunity passing order of hearing entailing before adverse taking action consequences, or the normal rule is to give a pre-- decisional hearing. The post-decisional hearing is a resort which may be allowed in exceptional cases where the compliance of natural justice in form of hearing before decision was an empty formality or giving of hearing would not have made difference or change the scenario. However where the action or order entails civil consequences and becomes complete in itself against the person concerned, post decisional hearing would only be an eyewash and could not be viewed as remedy to fill up the want of natural justice."
14. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is safely be held that initiation of disciplinary proceedings without any such sabotage activities stated in the rules, if approved to stand, the net result would be nothing but allowing sword of Damocles on the heads of the applicants resulting to harassment and humiliation. This view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Crompton Greaves Ltd. (supra) and V.K.Khanna (supra). From RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 30 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases the discussions made above, the irresistible conclusion is that the charge sheets issued to the applicants under Rule 10B (Major Penalties)of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, impugned in these OAs, are not sustainable in the eyes of law and, thus, the same are hereby quashed. Resultantly, by applying the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus, the appointments of appointment of the IOs/POs to proceed with the inquiry in pursuance of the charge sheet are hereby also annulled. We also make it clear that this order is confined to the applicants alone."
6. On examination, we find that this Bench interfered in the charge sheet on various grounds as under:
(i) The dictionary meaning of the words "incitement"
is an action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully; "violence" is behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something; and of "Sabotage" is deliberately destroy, damage, or obstruct (something), especially for political or military advantage. As discussed above, neither in the charge sheet nor in the counter there is any whisper that any of the applicants had resorted to incitement, violence and sabotage or any such other activities of creating hindrance to the general public or to the employees in discharging their normal duties, who intended to work. Therefore, issuance of charge sheet on the ground that the applicants RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 31 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases violated the conditions stipulated under Rule 23 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2020.
(ii) The allegations made in the charges are vague, indefinite, unspecific and without any evidence.
(iii) No document was produced by the respondents that the Strike called by the Union was declared as illegal by the Department.
(iv) The Respondents also deducted the salary for the period of strike. Thus, initiation of disciplinary proceedings on such counts amounts to giving post decisional hearing.
(v) A strike typically refers to a collective refusal by workers to perform their duties as a form of protest against their employer. Strikes are usually aimed at securing better wages, working conditions or other labour rights. A strike by employees is considered a legal right in India, not a fundamental right. While the Constitution guarantees freedom of association, the right to strike itself is not explicitly listed as a fundamental right and is subject to significant legal restrictions and regulations under various statutes like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The unauthorized absence, as alleged, was after putting notice to participate in the strike for achievement of some demand relating to their condition of service RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 32 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases and not for any sudden absence without any intimation.
(vi) No evidence was produced that any of the applicants had resorted to any action of incitement, violence and sabotage, which is a precondition for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the GDS involved in strike apart from curtailing the TRCA. We also noticed that this aspect of the matter is not one of the allegations in the Article of Charges. Hence, the provision of Rule 23 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2020 is not attracted.
(vii) If law requires something to be done in a particular manner then it must be done in that manner and if it is not done in that manner it would have no existence in the eyes of the law vide paragraph 23 in the case of Krishna Rai (Dead) through LRs and others Vs Banaras Hindu University through Registrar and others, 2022 Live law (SC) 553. But, the charge sheet was issued alleging violation of Rule 23 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2020 although, no such violation is noticed.
(viii) The action was found to be one in violation of the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 33 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases Apex Court, in the case of Supertech Ltd. Vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Ors, (2024) 1 SCC (L&S) 819 that one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly ["Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum"] .
(ix) In the peculiar facts and circumstances, it was held that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings without any such sabotage activities stated in the rules, if approved to stand, the net result would be nothing but allowing sword of Damocles on the heads of the applicants resulting to harassment and humiliation, which view was supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Crompton Greaves Ltd. (supra) and V.K.Khanna (supra). Accordingly, the charge sheets and well as appointment of IO and PO were quashed.
7. We have examined the decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents in the case of Kunisetty Satyanarayana (supra) wherein their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 34 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases show-cause notice or charge sheet. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-
cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter. In the said decision, no such absolute bar is put by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in no circumstances, the court can interfere in the charge sheet.
8. We also find that in the case of A.Radha Krishna Moorthy (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the order of Tribunal in interfering on the charge sheet by observing that when the charge sheet is vague, not specific, unclear and the allegation is general in nature, the employee concerned is not expected to meet the allegation and, therefore, the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet deserves acceptance. This decision supports the view taken by this Bench in the disposed of matters.
9. Similarly, in the case of Upendra Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court did not make any such straightjacket prohibition that in no circumstances the court can interfere in the charge sheet rather it was held that each case will depend upon the facts and no absolute RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 35 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases rule can be postulated. In the above case, the Hon'ble Court interfered in the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal quashed the charge sheet issued in1991 by applying the decision made in the assessment proceeding by the Learned ITAT dated July 21, 1992, which is not the present case.
10. In the case of Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (supra), the Tribunal quashed the chargesheet vide order dated 20th March, 1997 in respect of misconduct alleged to have taken place on 31.8.1991 permitting the department to proceed in the disciplinary proceedings de novo, which order was also upheld by the Hon'ble High Court but the Hon'ble Apex Court held that though the allegations against the delinquent had been very serious, i.e. demand and acceptance of bribe, a period of two decades has passed since the alleged incident. Disciplinary proceedings could not be proceeded further as the chargesheet itself had been quashed and there is nothing on record to show that the respondent delinquent is still in service and that even if the appellants are permitted to proceed with the inquiry, the evidence which was available 21 years ago would be RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 36 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases available today and, accordingly, stopped the disciplinary proceedings.
11. The case of P.P.Sharma (supra) is a case of criminal appeal filed against the order of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in Crl. W.J.C. Nos. 90 and 228 of 1989 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Learned Judges have committed gravest errors of law in quashing the F.I.R. and Charge-sheets since the proceedings are yet to start.
The present case is not a criminal case and, therefore, it is not understood as to how this decision has any application to the case in hand.
12. We have also gone through the decision in the case of T.K.Rangarajan (supra) and All India Bank Employees Association (supra). Trite is the position of law that participation in a strike, by itself, does not amount to misconduct unless the strike is declared illegal. In the disposed of cases, this Bench interfered in the matter by holding that no document was produced by the respondents that the Strike called by the Union was declared as illegal by the Department;
the respondents also deducting the salary for the period of strike, and, hence, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings on such counts RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 37 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases amounts to giving post decisional hearing. Further, it was observed that a strike typically refers to a collective refusal by workers to perform their duties as a form of protest against their employer.
Strikes are usually aimed at securing better wages, working conditions or other labour rights. A strike by employees is considered a legal right in India, not a fundamental right. While the Constitution guarantees freedom of association, the right to strike itself is not explicitly listed as a fundamental right and is subject to significant legal restrictions and regulations under various statutes like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The unauthorized absence, as alleged, was after putting notice to participate in the strike for achievement of some demand relating to their condition of service and not for any sudden absence without any intimation. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the Tribunal reached the conclusion without taking into the consideration the very aspects of the decisions relied on by the respondents.
13. The allegation that the applicant provoked other GDS employees for strike and was involved in obstruction of conveyance of mail are contained in Article IV, which is as under:
RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 38 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases "Article IV........ Sri Bichitrananda Patra did not care for the same and continued to provocate other GDSs for strike with an ill intention to disrupt postal services in Bhubaneswar Division. Sri Bichitrananda Patra also involved himself in obstructing conveyance of mails at different places in Bhubaneswar Division with agitating GDS employees....."
14. The allegation made in IV of the charge memo, as aforesaid, has been reiterated in verbatim in the statement of imputation, which reads as under:
"....Sri Bichitrananda Patra did not care for the same and continued to provocate other GDSs for strike with an ill intention to disrupt postal services in Bhubaneswar Division. Sri Bichitrananda Patra also involved himself in obstructing conveyance of mails at different places in Bhubaneswar Division with agitating GDS employees."
15. Rule and law is no more res integra that the charge sheet issued to an employee in a disciplinary proceeding is considered the foundation of the case and must not be vague. It must be clear, precise, and detailed to allow the employee to understand the allegations and prepare a proper defense. A vague charge sheet is considered a fatal defect that can vitiate the entire inquiry process. Evidence adduced should not be perfunctory, even if the delinquent does not take the defence of, or make a protest with RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 39 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases against that the charges are vague, that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated, for the reason that there must be fair-play in action, particularly in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. It is not permissible to hold an enquiry on vague charges, as the same do not give a clear picture to the delinquent to make out an effective defence as he will be unaware of the exact nature of the allegations against him, and what kind of defence he should put up for rebuttal thereof is the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surath Chandra Chakravarty vs The State of West Bengal, AIR 1971 SC 752, observing that the grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the specific contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 40 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases founded, he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him.
Further, the above view is reiterated in a significant decision in the case of Anant R Kulkarni vs Y.P.Education Society & Ors, AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 2098, holing as under:
"10. Where the chargesheet is accompanied by the statement of facts and the allegations are not specific in the chargesheet, but are crystal clear from the statement of facts, in such a situation, as both constitute the same document, it cannot be held that as the charges were not specific, definite and clear, the enquiry stood vitiated. Thus, nowhere should a delinquent be served a chargesheet, without providing to him, a clear, specific and definite description of the charge against him. When statement of allegations are not served with the chargesheet, the enquiry stands vitiated, as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. Evidence adduced should not be perfunctory, even if the delinquent does not take the defence of, or make a protest with against that the charges are vague, that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated, for the reason that there must be fair-play in action, particularly in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. What is required to be examined is whether the delinquent knew the nature of accusation. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges.
xxx xxx xxx
28. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, none of the charges are specific and precise. The charges have not been accompanied by any statement of RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 41 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases allegations, or any details thereof. It is not therefore permissible, for the respondents to hold an enquiry on such charges..."
16. In the present case, it is alleged that the applicant continued to provoke other GDSs for strike with an ill intention to disrupt postal services in Bhubaneswar Division and, that, he was also involved himself in obstructing conveyance of mails at different places in Bhubaneswar Division with agitating GDS employees without mentioning in the charge sheet or in the statement of imputation the names of such GDS employees, who alleged that they joined the strike on being provoked by the applicant(s). Similarly, the allegation that the applicant(s) involved in obstructing conveyance of mails at different places in Bhubaneswar Division is bereft of any details as to which vehicle carrying the postal materials was obstructed, where and on which date and time. The charge sheet did not contain the statement of any of such drivers who were obstructed by the applicant(s). Thus, the stand taken by the applicant(s) that the allegation is vague and such they are disabled and prejudiced to meet and answer the allegation is found to be justified.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 42 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases
17. Since, the facts, issues, ground of challenge so also the opposition made by the respondents are almost same and similar in all the cases, we do not feel it appropriate to deal with the facts of each and every matters separately. Notably, judicial discipline is the ethic that turns hierarchy into harmony. It requires to standby the decisions already rendered on the subject by application of doctrine of "Stare decisis et non quieta movere" which means to decide the matter alike and not to disturb settled matters, to safeguard of equality before the law. In the light of the discussions made above, we find that none of the stand taken by the respondents pursued us in any manner to take a different view than the view already taken by this Bench in the OA Nos. 260/00100, 106, 111, 112, 142, 178, 179, 225, 246, 374 and 741 of 2024. Accordingly, the charge sheets issued to the applicants under Rule 10B (Major Penalties) of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, impugned in these OAs, are not sustainable in the eyes of law and, thus, the same are hereby quashed. Resultantly, by applying the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus, the appointment of the IOs/POs to proceed RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.16 10:03:56 +05'30' 43 O.A.Nos. 110 of 2024 & 24 other cases with the inquiry in pursuance of the charge sheet are hereby also annulled.
18. In view of the discussions made above, OA Nos. 110, 253, 257, 258, 289, 293, 294, 295, 297, 300, 301, 302, 304, 309, 310, 311, 312, 323, 375, 376, 402, 403, 521, 562 and 743 of 2024 are allowed to the above extent by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.16
10:03:56 +05'30'