Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Dhanush V vs Department Of Posts on 23 February, 2026
1
OA.No.170/00204/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00204/2025
ORDER RESERVED ON: 11.02.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 23.02.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A)
Sri. Dhanush V., 30 years,
Son of Vishwanath Reddy M,
GDS-MC Tayalur Sub-Post Office: 563136,
Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District
(Under put off duty)
Residing at No.116/120 Tayalur: 563136,
Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District
Mobile No: 8867157990
Email: [email protected] ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri P.A. Kulkarni)
Vs.
1. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kolar Division,
Kolar: 563101
E-mail: [email protected]
2. Inspector Posts,
Robertsonpet Sub-Division,
Robertsonpet: 563122,
Kolar District.
E-mail: [email protected]
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Suneja Date: 2026.02.23
15:18:35+05'30'
2
OA.No.170/00204/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
3. Inspector Posts,
Chintamani sub-division,
Chintamani: 563125,
Kolar District.
E-mail: [email protected]
4. Assistant Superintendent of Posts (R),
Office of SSPOs,
Kolar Division,
Kolar: 563101.
E-mail: [email protected] ...Respondents
(By Shri K. Gajendra Vasu, Senior Panel Counsel)
ORDER
PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
1. This OA has been filed on 15.04.2025 for quashment of the orders Annexure - A9 dated 24.03.2025 and A11 dated 26.03.2025. By the order Annexure A9, a charge sheet Annexure
- A11 has been issued to the applicant. The reliefs claimed in para 8 of the OA are as under:-
"a) Quash the impugned orders bearing No: F/ Tayalur / V. Dhanush / 2022-23 dated 24.03.2025 Ann-A9 passed by ASP (R) office of SSPOs Kolar Division in the capacity of holding Addl. Charge of ASP Kolar subdivision, Kolar & Inspector Posts Robertsonpet sub-division Robertsonpet-563122 and charge memo bearing No: F/Tayalur/V.Dhanush/2025 dated 26.03.2025 Ann-A11 issued by Sri. Arun Kumar A.B. Inspector of Posts, Chintamani sub-division, Chintamani:563125.Digitally signed by
Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.02.23 15:18:35+05'30' 3 OA.No.170/00204/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Consequently/Independently
b) Direct the respondents to cause applicant's reinstatement into service forthwith as before by ending put off duty of the applicant.
Or in the Alternative Direct the respondents to grant the put off duty subsistence allowance at 90% of the entitled total emoluments due to the applicant every month had he not been on put off duty.
c) Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem it fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. As per applicant's pleadings, the aforesaid charge sheet has been challenged only upon the ground of incompetency of the authority who issued the charge sheet. The applicant was working as 'Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Carrier' w.e.f. 12.09.2014. His Appointing Authority is the 'Inspector Posts', a charge sheet was issued to the applicant. Before issuing the charge sheet, the applicant was placed under put-off duty. The applicant challenged the aforesaid order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid OA. Thereafter, the applicant preferred a petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and thereafter, in compliance with the High Court order, the present fresh charge sheet was issued to the applicant. The counsel for applicant draws attention towards para 4.15 of the OA and submitted during the final arguments that the entire challenge has Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.02.23 15:18:35+05'30' 4 OA.No.170/00204/2025/CAT/BANGALORE been contained in the aforesaid para. For better appreciation, it will be proper to produce the aforesaid para as it is:-
"4.15 Applicant's case is that once there is a regular incumbent of the post of Inspector Posts, Robertsonpet subdivision who is the appointing authority for the applicant as stated above, he alone is empowered to issue charge memorandum and to deal with it so as to decide the nature of the penalty which can be imposed against the applicant in respect of any misconduct at his end. The word employed in Rule 9 of the GDS Rules 2011 starts with the clause "the following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons as herein after provided be imposed on a sevak by the recruiting authority only". In this view of the matter applicant's humble submission is that the moment Sri. Deepak S. Patil, Inspector Posts takes the charge of the Robertsonpet sub-division w.e.f 19.08.2024 as stated above, no adhoc DA can act against the applicant as there is no prohibition under rules as stated above for this incumbent appointing authority of the Robertsonpet sub-division in respect of the applicant. In this view of the matter the charge sheet issued by Sri. Arun Kumar A.B. vide memorandum dated 26.03.2025 Ann-A11 is without legal sanction. It is to be noticed herein that this regular appointing authority of the applicant is in no way disabled to act as regular Disc. Authority against the applicant inorder to proceed against the applicant for initiation of any disc. proceedings if he so finds reasonable grounds to do so in terms of Rule 9 & 10 of the GDS Rules 2011 (It is made clear that rule position remains the same in 2020 GDS Rules also which is in force w.e.f 14.02.2020)."
3. In a nutshell, the applicant challenged the aforesaid charge sheet upon the ground that the 'Adhoc Appointing Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.02.23 15:18:35+05'30' 5 OA.No.170/00204/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Authority' was not competent to issue the charge sheet because the regular 'Appointing Authority' has been posted from 19.08.2024, while the charge sheet has been issued on 26.03.2025. Therefore, the charge sheet should be issued by the regular incumbent of the post of Inspector Posts who had joined on 19.08.2024.
4. The respondents opposed the contention of the applicant by filing the detailed reply statement. It is submitted by the respondents that because the 'Appointing Authority' was a material witness in the aforesaid case, therefore 'Adhoc Appointing Authority' was appointed. In compliance with the direction given by the High Court in the writ petition, the fresh charge sheet has been issued by the same authority who issued the earlier chargesheet. Hence, no prejudice has been caused to the applicant. The applicant is deliberately causing the delay in disposal of the departmental proceedings. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. It appears from the record that a charge sheet (Annexure
- A3) was issued to the applicant on 10.04.2024. At that time, the applicant was posted as Dak Sevak / MC (POD), Tayalur SO and the charge sheet was issued by the 'Adhoc Appointing Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.02.23 15:18:35+05'30' 6 OA.No.170/00204/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Authority' i.e. Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Kolar Sub-Division who was holding the additional charge of Robertsonpet Sub-Division. By order Annexure - A4, the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority was appointed. The aforesaid order says:-
"OFFICE OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, S.K. REGION BENGALURU-560001 Memo No: SK/VIG/8-5/KLR/ADA dated at Bengaluru-01 the 15.05.2024 ORDER Whereas it has been proposed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Srl. V. Dhanush, ABPM, Tayalur SO under Kolar Division. Whereas the said Sri. V. Dhanush was initially appointed by IP, Robertsonpet Sub Division. And whereas, IP, Robertsonpet Sub Division is the normal Disciplinary Authority in respect of the Dak Sevak holding the post held by Sri. V. Dhanush, ABPM, Tayalur SO and Sri. P.L. Nagaraju, ASP Kolar Sub Division holding the additional charge of Robertsonpet sub division is not in a position to exercise the powers of the Disciplinary Authority competent to impose the penalties as per Rule-10 of GDS(C&E) Rules 2011, being material witness in the said case.
Now, therefore the Postmaster General in pursuance of the provisions of Rule-5 of the said rules hereby orders that Sri. A.B Arun Kumar, Inspector Posts, Chintamani Sub Division shall be empowered to function as Adhoc Disciplinary Authority of the said Sri. V. Dhanush, ABPM, Tayalur SO. An appeal against the orders passed by the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority will lie to SSPOs Kolar Division.
Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.02.23 15:18:35+05'30' 7
OA.No.170/00204/2025/CAT/BANGALORE By order and in the name of Postmaster General SK Region, Bengaluru"
6. It appears from the aforesaid order (Annexure - A4) that Sri. P.L. Nagaraju, ASP, Kolar Sub-division was holding the additional charge of Robertsonpet Sub-division, was not in the position to exercise the powers of Disciplinary Authority because he was a material witness in the said case. Looking to the aforesaid situation, the 'Adhoc Disciplinary Authority' was appointed and Shri A.B. Arun Kumar, Inspector Posts, Chintamani Sub-division was empowered to function as 'Adhoc Disciplinary Authority' of the applicant. In the aforesaid order, it was not mentioned that the authority has been appointed only for time being and the authority will be ineffective after the joining of another person in place of Shri P.L. Nagaraju. Prima facie, it can be said that the aforesaid appointment was for entire disciplinary proceedings.
7. The applicant was placed under put-off duty by order dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure - A2). The applicant filed the departmental appeal against the aforesaid order which was also dismissed by order dated 15.03.2023.
Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.02.23 15:18:35+05'30' 8
OA.No.170/00204/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
8. The order of put-off duty dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure - A2) and the appeal dismissal order was challenged by the applicant by filing OA No. 370/2023. In the aforesaid petition present Anx.A2 was Anx.A3 and Appeal dismissal order was Anx.A6. The D.B. of this Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid OA on 11.07.2024 vide order Annexure - A5. It is mentioned in para 10 of the aforesaid order, that during pendency of the OA, the charge sheet dated 10.04.2024 was issued. The Tribunal discussed the matter in detail and dismissed the OA but the direction was issued to the respondents to conclude the departmental proceedings as expeditiously as possible in any even within a period of 04 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
9. The aforesaid order (Annexure - A5) passed by the Division Bench of C.A.T. Bangalore on 11.07.2024 was challenged by the applicant before the High Court of Karnataka by filing Writ Petition No. 22681/2024 (S-CAT). The High Court decided the aforesaid writ on 09.01.2025 (Reported as Dhanush V. Vs. Post Master General and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 14505). The High Court also took a note that during pendency of OA, the charge sheet was issued on 10.04.2024. After perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.02.23 15:18:35+05'30' 9 OA.No.170/00204/2025/CAT/BANGALORE High Court it appears that in para 6 and 7 of the aforesaid order it was mentioned:-
"6. It was the contention of Mr. Kulkarni that the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority must apply its mind afresh on the charges and decide whether a charge sheet need to be issued to the petitioner herein at all.
7. Today, Mr. Shanthi Bhushan, learned DSGI, would state that, if permission is granted, the respondents shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings within three months from today. He also states that, the plea of Mr. Kulkarni that the adhoc disciplinary authority must apply its mind afresh on the issuance of the charge sheet shall also be acted upon in as much as the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority shall apply its mind, as to whether any misconduct is made out on the part of the petitioner and if such a decision is in the affirmative, a fresh charge sheet shall be issued to him."
10. It appears from the aforesaid paras that the applicant counsel stated before the High Court that the 'Adhoc Disciplinary Authority' must apply its mind afresh on the charges and decide whether a charge sheet need to be issued or not ?. In para 7, it is mentioned that the Government counsel also stated the plea of the applicant counsel that the 'Adhoc Disciplinary Authority' must apply its mind afresh on the issuance of the charge sheet. Thereafter, the Court stated in paras 10 to 13 as under:-
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.02.23 15:18:35+05'30' 10 OA.No.170/00204/2025/CAT/BANGALORE "10. If that be so, we dispose of this writ petition by directing the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority to apply its mind to the alleged misdemeanour on the part of the petitioner, for which a charge sheet has been issued and take a decision as to whether any charge sheet needs to be issued. If decision is in the affirmative, authority shall be within its right to issue a charge sheet to the petitioner and then proceed in accordance with the law.
11. The authority shall also consider the request made by the petitioner through Mr. Kulkarni for enhancement of the subsistence allowance over and above what is being paid to the petitioner as of now and take a decision. If the decision is in the affirmative, the petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance in terms of the decision thereof.
12. The aforesaid action shall be taken by the disciplinary authority within a period of three months from today.
13. We make it clear that, if the decision of the Disciplinary Authority is for issuance of charge sheet, a fresh charge sheet shall be issued and the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority shall complete the proceedings within a period of three months thereafter."
11. It appears from the aforesaid paragraphs that the High Court disposed of the petition with the direction given to the "Adhoc Disciplinary Authority" to apply his mind and in para 13 it was clearly stated that if the decision of the Disciplinary Authority is for issuance of the charge sheet, a fresh charge sheet shall be issued and the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority shall Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.02.23 15:18:35+05'30' 11 OA.No.170/00204/2025/CAT/BANGALORE complete the proceedings within a period of 03 months thereafter. It is clearly established from the aforesaid order that in the entire judgment of the High Court the word "Adhoc Disciplinary Authority" has been mentioned. The direction was also given to the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority.
12. It is an admitted fact that because the authority (who was a material witness in the case) was changed on 15.05.2024 and the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority was appointed. Thereafter, Regular authority Inspector, Robertsonpet joined on 19.08.2024.
13. OA No.370/2023 was decided by the Tribunal on 11.07.2024. At that time, the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority was competent as per order Annexure - A4. The regular person joined on 19.08.2024. It means after the decision of C.A.T, the regular person was appointed. The Writ Petition (Annexure - A6) was decided by the High Court on 09.01.2025. It is not clear that on which date this petition was filed but the petition was decided on 09.01.2025. Before deciding the aforesaid petition, the regular Appointing Authority had joined on 19.08.2024. Therefore, it was the duty of the applicant to point out this position before the High Court. The respondents were also liable to point out the aforesaid position. But it appears that till the Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.02.23 15:18:35+05'30' 12 OA.No.170/00204/2025/CAT/BANGALORE date of judgment i.e. 09.01.2025, both parties did not disclose the fact before the High Court that the regular Appointing Authority had joined on 19.08.2024. In the aforesaid situation, the High Court passed the order and all directions were given to the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority, who already issued the previous charge sheet.
14. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority again applied his mind and issued the fresh charge sheet Annexure - A11 along with letter Anx.-A9. In this fresh charge sheet, the previous Charge No.5 was dropped. The total amount of embezzlement is about Rs.1,50,017/- (One lakh Fifty thousand and seventeen rupees).
15. In the case of P. Venugopalan, Vs. The Union of India and others, 2012 SCC OnLine Ker 6905 [D.B. of Kerala High Court decided on 27.03.2012] the charge against applicant was that while he was working as GDS Sub-branch Post Master, he did not pay the amount due to a depositor under a Recurring Deposit; instead, unauthorisedly appropriated that amount by signing himself as depositor on the receipt side of the withdrawal form and thus failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, violating the relevant provisions or the conditions of Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.02.23 15:18:35+05'30' 13 OA.No.170/00204/2025/CAT/BANGALORE service rules. The fundamental plea was taken by the applicant that "Senior Superintendent of Post Offices" is his appointing authority while the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by a Superintendent of Post Offices and therefore, there is clear violation of Rules 7 and 8 of the E.D. Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. The Court dismissed the petition upon the ground that any prejudice or manifest injustice has not been caused to the applicant. The court said in para 3:-
"3. We find that the enquiry was conducted by an officer of the rank of a Superintendent of Post Offices who was made the ad hoc enquiry authority. That apart, the employee participated in those proceedings without challenging the initiation of proceedings or the jurisdiction of that enquiry authority. Beyond all that, is the fact that he invoked the appellate and revisional remedies, without in any manner pointing out that there was any prejudice or manifest injustice in the disciplinary proceedings. The appellate authority and revisional authority are superior to the authority which initiated the proceedings. Doctrine of merger clears any situation of lack of jurisdiction of the authority at the initial level in the hierarchy. No case of prejudice referable to such procedure has been demonstrated either before the Tribunal or even before us. The entire materials on record do not show any speck of injustice having been caused to the petitioner. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal dismissing the Original Application. In the result, the writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs."Digitally signed by
Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.02.23 15:18:35+05'30' 14 OA.No.170/00204/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
16. At present, any personal allegation is not against the present Adhoc Authority who issued the fresh charge sheet in compliance with the High Court order. The initial order was not restricted to a limited time. In case of issuing the charge sheet, the Court has limited power. If prima facie it appears that any prejudice may be caused to the applicant, then the Court may interfere. In this case, in our view, any prejudice has not been caused to the applicant because the Adhoc Authority, who issued the charge sheet, was also the competent authority and he is not biased against the applicant. Even the regular authority had joined and the order was not revised, but only upon this ground, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the applicant. Even the option of appeal was also mentioned in the order Annexure - A5. It was mentioned that the appeal against the order passed by the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority will lie to SSPOS, Kolar division. Hence, it cannot be said that without having any powers the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority issued the charge sheet. Direction was also given to the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority by the High Court and both the parties did not disclose the fact before the High Court that the regular Authority had joined on 19.08.2024.
Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.02.23 15:18:35+05'30' 15
OA.No.170/00204/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
17. In the aforesaid situation, it appears that any prejudice has not been caused to the applicant and petition not having any force. Hence, the OA is dismissed. Both parties shall bear their own costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ms/
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Suneja Date: 2026.02.23
15:18:35+05'30'