Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Lalit Kumar vs D/O Post on 4 September, 2025
(Reserved on 07.08.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on 04th day of September, 2025
Original Application No.515 of 2017
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Lalit Kumar, S/o late Sri Ram Surat Ram, R/o village-Karmaipur, Post
Debethua, District Varanasi
....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Chandra Dutt
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication
Departments of Post Daak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
2. Chief Post Master General UP Parimandal, Lucknow
3. Superintendent of Daak Ghar Varanasi, West Region, Varanasi
4. Gramin Daak Sevak Shakha, Daak Pal Dabethua (Kathiravan),
Varanasi ... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri K.D. Mishra
ORDER
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard Shri Chandra Dutt, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:
8.1 Issue an order or direction to quash the impugned order dated 24.03.2024 (communication dated 27.10.2014) passed by Superintendent Daak Ghar, Varanasi, West Region, respondent-3.
8.2 Issue an order or direction to the respondent-3 to reinstate the applicant on the post of Gramin Daak Pal Seval Page 1 of 8 8.3 Issue any other and further order or direction or any suitable relief which the applicant is legally entitled any which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
8.4 This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to award cost of the Original Application to the applicant.
3. The brief facts as apparent from the record are that the applicant was engaged/appointed as Post Man in rural Area as Branch Dak Pal Thabethua, Kathirwavan vide engagement letter dated 04.06.2006. He joined on the said post on 11.06.2006. Thereafter, he was continuously working to the satisfaction of the respondents. However, on 25.10.2008, a false and fabricated First Information Report (hereinafter referred as FIR) was lodged against applicant and 4 others in Case Crime No. 269 of 2008 under sections 498A, 304B of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Phoolpur District-Varanasi.
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA 3.1 The wife of the applicant got seriously ill on 24.10.2008 and was suffering from Gastro Interties (Loose Motion and Vomiting) and she was admitted at 6.30 P.M. at Shivam Hospital in Kathirawn, which is 3 km. away from the Sasural of the deceased and there from she was referred to Varanasi Hospital on 25.10.2008 at 5.00 AM, and thereafter making all arrangement of expenses, the husband took her by Maruti Van to once again in a nearby Sanmukh Hospital, Babatpur for quick relief, but she was not admitted by the doctors. Then, she was taken to BHU Hospital, where she was admitted and while going to Medical checkup, consequently she died as her natural death.
3.2 Thereafter, the applicant was convicted in case crime No. 269 of 2008 in ST No. 49/2009 (State Vs. Raj Dulari and another) on 24.03.2014 under section 302, 201, 498A of the IPC and 3/4 DP Act and other co-accused, Raj Dulari, Ram Surat Ram, Amit Kumar, Ajit Kumar were acquitted. The applicant was detained in custody from 19.11.2008. Page 2 of 8 3.4 Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed Criminal Appeal No. 1661 of 2014 under section 374(2) Cr.PC. before the High Court of Allahabad and the applicant was granted bail vide order dated 09.05.2016. In compliance of order dated 09.05.2016, the applicant was released from Jail on 20.05.2016 and he was remained custody from 19.11.2008 to 20.05.2016.
3.5 In the meantime, the applicant was terminated from the service w.e.f. 24.03.2014 vide order dated 27.10.2014 on the ground conviction of the applicant in ST No. 49/2009 under sections 302, 201, 498A of the IPC and 3/4 DP Act. Subsequently, an advertisement was floated by the respondents on 30.12.2014 in respect of provisional vacancy of post man, which was fallen vacant due to initiation of criminal proceeding against the applicant and same was subject to the condition of PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA reinstatement of the applicant and after reinstatement of applicant the aforesaid vacancy would be automatically deemed to be terminated. Hence, the applicant has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents on 29.09.2021, wherein, it has been stated that the applicant was initially appointed as Gramin DAK Sevak, BPM Dabethua Branch Office in account with Kathiraon Sub Office of Varanasi West Division vide Memo No. A-131/Niyukti/2008 dated 04.06.2008 & after completion of prerequisite training, he took the charge of the post on 11.06.2008. During the course service, a criminal Case No. 269/2008 was lodged against him under Sections 302, 201, 498 A of IPC act and Dowry Provisions Act and he was taken into Judicial custody on 16.11.2008. Consequently, upon his judicial custody, the applicant was placed under deemed (suspension) put off from duty vide Memo No. A-3/Dabethua/ DP/2008-09 dated 06.12.2008, w.e.f. 16.11.2008. Page 3 of 8 4.1 The applicant was convicted in the said criminal case vide order dated 24.03.2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 269 of 2008 in ST No. 49/2009 (State Vs. Raj Dulari and another). Therefore, the applicant was removed from service w.e.f 24.03.2014 vide this office Memo No. A- 131/Ch-II/2014-15 dated 27.10.2014. In view thereof, a provisional appointment process was started vide notification dated 30.12.2014 for functioning the work of Gramin DAK Sevak, Branch Postmaster Dabethua, Post Office and one Shri Devshani S/o Lal Bahadur R/o Dabethua Varanasi was appointed provisionally on the said post vide Memo No. A-131/Niyukti/2015-16 dated 06.05.2015 & provisionally appointed person is working on the post since 15.05.2015 till date. 4.2 The applicant filed a Criminal Appeal No. 1661/2004 before the Allahabad High Court, which is still pending & was released on bail PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA vide orders dated 09.05.2016 passed in bail application No. 145443 of 2014. The services of the applicant was rightly terminated upon conviction on account of criminal charges and the action was taken against the applicant in consonance with Rule 11 (4) of Gramin DAK Sevak (Conduct & Engagement) Rules. The applicant's Criminal Appeal is still under consideration and he has only been released on bail. Therefore, he is not acquitted from the charges proved in the lower court.Hence, the instant Original Application is devoid of substance and liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. In reply, rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant on 29.11.2021, wherein, the applicant reiterated the same averments as made in the Original Application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant assailed the impugned order on the ground that the impugned order of termination has been passed without application of mind. The applicant has been terminated from service straightway without providing any opportunity to him in light Page 4 of 8 of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. The applicant has been terminated only on the ground of conviction, no proceeding was initiated against the applicant before issuance of termination order. The impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner. The failure of the respondents to independently consider the conduct of the employee is in teeth of the holdings of various constitutional Courts. 6.1 Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court in case of Manbodhan Vs. State of UP & Ors., passed in Writ A No.5413/2016 and in case of Manoj Kumar Katiyar Vs. State of UP & Ors. passed in Writ A No.11761/2023.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the applicant was righty terminated from service on the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA ground of conviction in criminal case. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order as the same has been issued in consonance with Rule 11 (4) of the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct & Engagement) Rules. Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India is not applicable in the instant case as the applicant is not a Government Servant. The Criminal Appeal of the applicant is still pending and he has only been released on bail and as such, his claim for reinstatement is not permissible in the eyes of law.
8. We have considered the arguments, so raised by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
9. From perusal of the records, it appears that admittedly, the applicant was engaged as Gramin Dak Sevak on contract basis vide order of engagement letter dated 04.06.2008, which was accepted by the applicant. For better appreciation of the matter, offer of engagement letter dated 04.06.2008 is quoted as under:-
1. श्री रलरत कुभाय ऩुत्र श्री याभ सूयत याभ ननवासी ग्राभ भरहम ( कयभाईऩुय) ऩोस्ट दवेथुआ ( कठियावै) वायाणसी जजनकी जन्भनतथथ 05-07-1980 है, को ग्राभीण डाक सेवक Page 5 of 8 शाखा डाकऩार दवेथुआ (कठियावें) जनऩद वायाणसी के ऩद ऩय ऩूणण रूऩेण अस्थामी तौय ऩय ननमुक्त ककमा जाता है । उऩयोक्त श्री रलरत कुभाय को सभम-सभम ऩय ननधाणरयत बत्ता दे म होगा ।
2. उऩयोक्त श्री रलरत कुभाय मह स्ऩष्ट रूऩ से सभझ रे कक जी. डी. एस. शाखा डाकऩार के ऩद ऩय की गई उनकी यह ननयुक्ति एक ठीके ( कान्ट्रे तट) के रूऩ में है . क्िसको ककसी भी समय उनके द्वारा अथवा अधोहस्िाऺरी द्वारा एक दस ू रे को सूचिि करिे हुए सेवा मुति कर ददया िायेगा। उनकी सेवामे समय-समय ऩर संशोचधि डाक ववभाग के ग्रामीण डाक सेवक (आिरण एवं रोिगार) ननयमावऱी 2001 के अन्ट्िगगि संरक्षऺि होगी ।
3 उऩयोक्त श्री रलरत कुभाय को कामणबाय सॊबारने के ऩहरे आवश्मक सेक्मोरयटी दे नी होगी। मह सयकायी यकभ (ऩैसा व फहुभूल्म वस्तुओ)ॊ के सुयऺा के लरए उत्तय दामी होगे ।
4. उऩयोक्त श्री रलरत कुभाय को शाखा डाकघय दवेथुआ के लरए उऩमुक्त बवन, जो छोटे , डाक कामाणरम का उद्दे श्म ऩूया कय सके, उसी ग्राभ दवेथुआ भें ही स्वम के व्मम ऩय यखना होगा जजसको वे ककसी अन्म ग्राभ व ऩुयवा भें स्थानान्तरयत नहीॊ कयें गे । उनको उसी ग्राभ दे क्थुआ भें आवास बी यखना ऩडेगा। मठद वे शाखा डाकघय को अन्म स्थान भें स्थानान्तरयत कयें गे तो उनकी सेवाभे सभाप्त कय दी जामेगी ।
5. मठद उऩयोक्त श्री रलरत कुभाय को उऩयोक्त सबी शते स्वीकाय हो तो वे इस ऻाऩन की दस ू यी प्रनत ऩय हस्ताऺय कयके अधोहस्ताऺयी को वाऩस कयें ।
6. चीप ऩोस्ट भास्टय जनयर रखनऊ के ऩत्राॊक बती / 381 एक्स / प्रलशऺण / 88/8 PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA ठदनाक 30-01-1989 के. भाध्मभ से ऩरयचालरत डाक भहाननदे शारम नई ठदल्री के ऩत्राॊक 17-228/88/ ई. डी. सी. व ट्रे ननॊग ठदनाॊक 26-12-1988 के अनुसाय उऩयोक्त श्री रलरत कुभाय को दो ठदन ननयीऺक डाकघय उत्तय उऩभण्डर वायाणसी के स्तय से उऩ डाकघय कठियावें भें प्रमोगात्भक प्रलशऺण प्राप्त कयना होगा ।
10. Further, the applicant was terminated from service w.e.f 24.03.2014 vide this office Memo No. A-131/Ch-II/2014-15 dated 27.10.2014. For better appreciation of the matter impugned order is quoted as under:-
जैसा कक श्री रलरत कुभाय ग्राभीण डाक सेवक शाखा डाकऩार दवेथआ ु रेखा कामाणरम कठियाॉव वायाणसी को वाद सॊख्मा 49/2009 अऩय सत्र न्मामाधीश न्मामारम सॊख्मा 6 वायाणसी द्वाया बा. द. स. की धाया 302, 201, 498ए, धाया 3 एवॊ धाया 4 दहे ज प्रनतषेध अथधननमभ के अन्तगणत दोषी कयाय दे ते हुए आजीवन कायावास एवॊ अथणदण्ड से दजण्डत ककमा गमा।
जैसा कक श्री रलरत कुभाय को दी गमी सजा उसके चरयत्र ऩय आधारयत हैं तथा इसे सेवा भें फना यहना अधोहस्ताऺयी उथचत नहीॊ सभझता ।
अत् एतद्वाया ग्राभीण डाक सेवक (आचायण एवॊ इन्गेजभेण्ट) ननमभावरी 2011 के ननमभ 11 भें प्रदत्त शजक्तमों का प्रमोग कयते हुए श्री रलरत कुभाय को ठदनाॊक 24-03-2014 से सेवा से ननष्कालसत कयने का आदे श ऩारयत ककमा जाता है , अथाणत जजस नतथथ से उसे दी गमी सजा के ऩरयणाभ स्वरूऩ जेर बेजा गमा है ।Page 6 of 8
11. Admittedly, the applicant was convicted in a criminal case vide order dated 24.03.2014 in ST No. 49/2009 (State Vs. Raj Dulari and another). Against which, a Criminal Appeal No. 1661/2004 before the Allahabad High Court, which is still pending and till date the applicant has not been acquitted by the Allahabad High Court though he released on bail vide order dated 09.05.2016 passed in bail application No. 145443 of 2014. The service of the applicant was terminated upon conviction on account of criminal charges and the action was taken against the applicant in consonance with Rule 11 (4) of Gramin DAK Sevak (Conduct & Engagement) Rules. He has not been acquitted from the charges levelled against him. The impugned order terminating the applicant from service on the ground of conviction, passed by a competent Court of law has not lost its validity merely because a criminal appeal was filed by the PUNIT KUMAR applicant against his conviction and the Appellate Court has enlarged the MISHRA applicant on bail. This matter may be examined from another angle.
Under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellate Court has power to suspend the execution of sentence and to release an accused on bail. When the appellate Court suspends the execution of sentence, and grants bail to an accused, the effect of the order is that sentence based on conviction is for the time being postponed, or kept in abeyance during the pendency of the appeal. In other words, by suspending the execution of the sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C., the accused avoids undergoing the sentence during the period of the appeal. However, the conviction remains intact and is not nullified, and as long as the conviction stands, any action taken against an employee on the basis of that conviction does not lose its validity merely because the Appellate Court has suspended the execution of the sentence and released the accused on bail.
12. Further, the charges in criminal case is against the applicant is registered under Section 302, 201, 498A of the IPC and 3/4 DP Act and Page 7 of 8 as such, the applicant has been rightly terminated from services. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Till date, the applicant has not been acquitted and as such, there is no question of reinstatement in services. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants are no help to him as the applicant is a contractual employee.
13. In view of the foregoing discussions and the catena of judgments of Apex Court, we find no illegality or any infirmity or any violation of principle of natural justice as well as the relevant provisions in the disciplinary inquiry and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
14. Accordingly, instant original application is liable to be dismissed and as such, same is hereby dismissed.
15. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
16. No order as to costs.
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial)
PM/-
Page 8 of 8