Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
S C Tripathi vs D/O Post on 4 September, 2025
OA No. 330/188 of 2014
(Reserved on 28.08.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on 04th day of September, 2025
Original Application No. 330/188 of 2014
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Subhash Chandra Tripathi, S/o Sri Badri Prasad Tripathi, R/o Post
Office Colony Civil Lines, Azamgarh
....Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tiwari
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Post, Ministry of
Communication, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi
2. Post Master General, Gorakhpur, UP Circle, Lucknow
3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Azamgarh Division,
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
Azamgarh ...... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Krishna kumar Ojha
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):
Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents in both the cases at the time of hearing.
2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:
I. This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 12.11.2013, 13.11.2013 & 26.12.2013, 28.11.2013, 10.12.2013, 27.12.2013 & 28.01.2014 passed by the Respondent No.3 II. This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to regularize the leave of the applicant in view of the medical certificates submitted time to time.Page 1 of 13
OA No. 330/188 of 2014 III. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.
3. The brief facts as narrated in the Original Application is that at the time of filing of the present case, the applicant was at the verge of retirement and now, he is superannuated w.e.f. 30.11.2014. The applicant is chronic patient of Asthma. This problem often take place at the time of change of whether in the month of particularly September and October and persist of complete winter session. 3.1 The applicant in 2013, while working as Wireman in the office of respondent-3, suffered with serious Asthmatic attacks, under which applicant became completely helpless to perform his duties properly. The applicant in the month September of 2013 seriously PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA suffered with asthmatic attack and therefore requested the respondent No.3 to grant him leave, but the respondent-3 out-rightly refused any leave as was personal prejudice to the applicant on the facts that on 19.08.2013, the applicant made a complaint against him before the respondent-2 regarding misbehavior and threat of slapping of respondent-3.
3.2 However, on 23.10.2013, the applicant was served with a charge sheet alleging him that he has stated that duty of wireman is not to physically execute wiring but his duty was only to find out the faults and report to the authorities and also guilty of violating the orders of his Superior, but the applicant was seriously ill during this period, he could not prefer his proper reply. Consequently on 12.11.2013, the applicant has been imposed penalty of reduction of pay by one stage from Rs.12,760-12,380 for a period of six months by the respondent-3. Page 2 of 13
OA No. 330/188 of 2014 3.3 Again, on the very next day i.e. on 24.10.2013, the applicant was served with another charge sheet, thereby it was alleged that vide order dated 11.07.2013, the applicant was directed to sort out the difficulties relating to installation of electric earthing, but the applicant vide his letter dated 12.07.2013, refused to perform aforesaid assignment with a plea that he has no knowledge of standard of earthing, which can be done by a person, who has knowledge of the measurement of earthing. Since the applicant was sick, he could not submit his reply to the charge sheet. Accordingly, on 13.11.2012 (next date to the earlier penalty), the applicant has been imposed penalty of reduction of pay by one stage from Rs.12,380-12.020 for six months by the order of respondent-3.
3.4 The respondent -3 was under obligation to verify the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA medical certificate, however in a grave arbitrary manner he made the irrelevant quarries from the applicant, which is evident from their letter dated 05.11.2013, whereby he has been demanded the prescription wherein the doctor has advised to him to eat boiled things and also demanded the rappers to the medicine the applicant was consuming during this period.
3.5 The applicant was again issued a charge sheet on 13.11.2013 on the allegation that the applicant without any proper permission went to Lucknow leaving Head Quarter, Azamgarh and was continuously staying there. The applicant again could not submit his reply and as such, vide order dated 26.12.2013, he has been imposed penalty of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect, passed by the respondent-3.
3.6 Similarly vide order dated 28.11.2013, the respondent-3 imposed to the applicant penalty of dies non without offering him any Page 3 of 13 OA No. 330/188 of 2014 opportunity of hearing. A perusal of the impugned order dated 28.11.2013 would further go to show that for the same period the applicant has already been imposed penalty of stoppage increment, hence the penalty is amounting to be a double jeopardy. 3.7 Again, on 10.12.2013, the respondent -3 again issued an order of penalty of dies non for the period from 29.11.2013 30.11.2013 and from 01.12.2013 to 10.12.2013, whereas the applicant submitted medical certificate covering period from 30.11.2013 to 31.12.2013. 3.8 On 27.12.2013, the respondents imposed another punishment, by which, the period from 11.12.2013 to 27.12.2013 has been treated as dies non. However, the said period of dies non are identical to the letter dated 10.12.2013.
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA 3.9 On 28.01.2014, the respondent -3 again imposed punishment of dies non against the applicant, whereas the applicant already submitted medical certificate covering from 01.01.2014 to 31.01.2014.
3.10 Aggrieved with the charge sheet, penalties imposed upon him and the action of the respondent-3, the applicant has made an appeal before the respondent-2, submitting therein that the respondent-3 in flagrant exercise of his power, was harassing applicant without any reasonable cause and also issued charge sheet to the baseless allegation which are beyond imagination. 3.11 On 02.12.2013, a letter has been issued from the office of the respondents for confirmation of the appeal against the respondent No.3, but no heed was paid. Hence, this Original Application has been filed, challenging the orders dated 12.11.2013, 13.11.2013 & 26.12.2013, 28.11.2013, 10.12.2013, 27.12.2013 & 28.01.2014 passed by the Respondent No.3 Page 4 of 13 OA No. 330/188 of 2014
4. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents on 15.11.2014, wherein it has been stated that the applicant was working as wireman, Divisional Post Office Azamgarh, attached to Azamgarh Head Post Office, the applicant came from Lucknow Division on administrative ground and joined in this Division on 01.02.2008. The applicant has always been indisciplined and disobedient in regard to discharge of his official duty entrusted to him from time to time. The applicant has been awarded penalty on dated 12.11.2013, 13.11.2013 & 26.12.2013 from reduction of pay by one stage from Rs.12760 to 12380 for the period of six months, further reduction of one stage from Rs. 12380 to 12020 for six months and last stoppage of one increment for three months respectively.
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA 4.1 The punishment dated 12.11.2013 was awarded on the ground that the applicant was directed vide office letter dated 10.10.2013 to proceed Mau Nath Bhanjan HO to set up the faulty electric wiring, but the applicant disobeyed the order dated 10.10.2013. In a similar incident vide letter dated 11.07.2013, the applicant was directed to set up the earthing problem of Divisional Office Azamgarh and Sub Office NBAIM, Kushmaur, Mau but as usual this time also the applicant did not obey the abovementioned order passed by the superior Authority. In another matter, the applicant was punished on the ground of leaving the Headquarter on 01.11.2013 without prior permission of this office vide order dated 26.12.2013. 4.2 The applicant did not submit any departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority against the abovementioned three penalties and filed the instant Original Application, without exhausting the departmental alternative remedy.
Page 5 of 13
OA No. 330/188 of 2014 4.3 Further, vide orders dated 28.11.2013, 10.12.2013, 27.12.2013 & 28.01.2014, the period from 01.11.2013 to 28.11.2013, 29.11.2013 to 30.11.2013 & 01.12.2013 to 10.12.2013, 11.12.2013 to 27.12.2013 & 28.12.2013 to 28.01.2014 were treated as dies-non as the applicant has left the Headquarter Azamgarh and went to Lucknow without prior permission to respondent Authorities. The dies-non orders do not come under the definition of punishment and no appeal for that was preferred so far. Hence, instant Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
5. In reply, rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant on 15.05.2015, wherein, reiterating the averments as made in Original Application. However, it is stated that the if the period of dies- non is not a penalty, the filing of appeal against the same does not PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA arise and no remedy of appeal is available against the same.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant assailed the impugned orders on the ground that medical certificate submitted by the applicant has not been considered by the respondent-3 while passing impugned orders dated 28.11.2013, 10.12.2013, 27.12.2013 & 28.01.2014, by which the period from 01.11.2013 to 28.11.2013, 29.11.2013 to 30.11.2013 & 01.12.2013 to 10.12.2013, 11.12.2013 to 27.12.2013 & 28.12.2013 to 28.01.2014.
6.1 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that when the department has admitted that the applicant had furnished the medical certificate, how the said periods can be declared as absent without permission. Furthermore, if the medical certificates were submitted before the respondents, it was essentially duty of the respondents to have a verification of the same and any decision of dies Page 6 of 13 OA No. 330/188 of 2014 non without giving opportunity to the applicant was illegal and unsustainable in law.
6.2 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the entire penalties dated 12.11.2013, 13.11.2013 & 26.12.2013 from reduction of pay by one stage from Rs.12760 to 12380/- for the period of six months, further reduction of one stage from 12,380 to 12020/- for six months and last stoppage of one increment for three months without cumulative effect respectively have been passed without any opportunity to defend the case though the charge-sheets have been issued, but at that time the applicant was hospitalized and medical certificates were sent to the office of the respondents. The applicant is going to superannuate on 30.11.2014 and penalties imposed upon him shall have serious effect in calculation of his pension which will be fixed PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA on reduced pay scale permanently. It is a well settled that the Disciplinary Authority against whom the complaint was made by the applicant was not authorized to issue charge sheets.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the applicant has consistently demonstrated indiscipline and disobedience in the discharge of his official duties entrusted to him from time to time. As a result, the applicant has been subjected to penalties for reductions in pay and last stoppage of one increment for three months by the aforesaid orders. It is noteworthy that the applicant did not file any appeal against the aforementioned penalties before the Appellate Authority, instead chose to file the present Original Application without exhausting the departmental remedies available.
Page 7 of 13
OA No. 330/188 of 2014 7.1 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in addition to the above penalties, vide orders dated 28.11.2013, 10.12.2013, 27.12.2013, and 28.01.2014, the periods from 01.11.2013 to 28.11.2013, 29.11.2013 to 30.11.2013, 01.12.2013 to 10.12.2013, 11.12.2013 to 27.12.2013, and 28.12.2013 to 28.01.2014 were treated as dies-non since the applicant left the Headquarter in Azamgarh and went to Lucknow without prior permission from the respondent authorities. The dies-non orders do not constitute punishment within the definition of service rules, and no appeal against such orders has been filed by the applicant so far.
7.2 In light of the above, the applicant has failed to follow the prescribed departmental procedure and has not exhausted the available alternative remedies before approaching this forum. PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Therefore, the instant Original Application is liable to be dismissed in limine.
8. We have considered the submissions so raised by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
9. From perusal of the records, it appears admittedly, the applicant had alternative remedy available before Appellate Authority, but the applicant directly rushed to this Tribunal without availing the same. Rule 23 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 provides for filing an appeal to the next higher Authority. Right of appeal is a substantive right and without availing the same, the applicant approached this Tribunal, challenging the orders dated 12.11.2013, 13.11.2013 & 26.12.2013, 28.11.2013, 10.12.2013, 27.12.2013 & 28.01.2014 passed by the Respondent No.3. It is settled law that when an alternative remedy is available, without availing the same, the Court would be slow in entertaining the applications Page 8 of 13 OA No. 330/188 of 2014 directly. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Apex Court in case of The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Greatship (India) Limited), reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 948, wherein it has been held as under:-
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.
At the outset, it is required to be noted that against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of the MVAT Act and CST Act, the assessee straightway preferred writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not in dispute that the statutes provide for the right of appeal against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and against the order passed by the first appellate authority, an appeal/revision before the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the assessment order in view of the availability of statutory remedy under the Act. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Satyawati Tondon (supra) in PUNIT KUMAR which this Court had an occasion to consider the entertainability MISHRA of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by by-passing the statutory remedies, is required to be referred to. After considering the earlier decisions of this Court, in paragraphs 49 to 52, it was observed and held as under:
"49. The views expressed in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433 were echoed in CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985) 1 SCC 260 in the following words:
(SCC p. 264, para 3) "3. ... Article 226 is not meant to short- circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute.Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice certainly needs to be strongly discouraged."
50. In Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan (2001) 6 SCC 569 this Court considered the question whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was maintainable against an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 19 of the DRT Act and observed: (SCC p. 570, paras 5-6) Page 9 of 13 OA No. 330/188 of 2014 "5. In our opinion, the order which was passed by the Tribunal directing sale of mortgaged property was appealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short „the Act‟). The High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 in view of the provision for alternative remedy contained in the Act. We do not propose to go into the correctness of the decision of the High Court and whether the order passed by the Tribunal was correct or not has to be decided before an appropriate forum.
6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is a hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast-track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless, when there is an alternative remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act."
51. In CCT v. Indian Explosives Ltd. [(2008) 3 SCC 688] the Court reversed an order passed by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court quashing the show-cause notice issued to the respondent under the Orissa Sales Tax Act by observing that the High Court had completely ignored the parameters laid down by this Court in a large number of cases relating to exhaustion of alternative remedy.
52. In City and Industrial Development Corpn. v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala [(2009) 1 SCC 168] the Court highlighted the parameters which are required to be kept in view by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Paras 29 and 30 of that judgment which contain the views of this Court read as under: (SCC pp. 175-76) "29. In our opinion, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty-bound to take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration and decide for itself even in the absence of proper affidavits from the State and its instrumentalities as to whether any case at all is made out requiring its interference on the basis of the material made available on record. There is nothing like issuing an ex parte writ of mandamus, order or direction in a public law remedy. Further, while considering the validity of impugned action or inaction the Court will not consider itself restricted to the pleadings of the State but would be free to satisfy itself whether any case as such is Page 10 of 13 OA No. 330/188 of 2014 made out by a person invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
30. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty- bound to consider whether:
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) the petition reveals all material facts;
(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors.
The Court in appropriate cases in its discretion may direct the State or its instrumentalities as the case may be to file proper affidavits placing all the relevant facts truly and accurately for the consideration of the Court and particularly in cases where public revenue and public interest are involved. Such directions are always required to be complied with by the State. No relief could be granted in a public law remedy as a matter of course only on the ground that the State did not file its counter-affidavit PUNIT KUMAR opposing the writ petition. Further, empty and self- MISHRA defeating affidavits or statements of Government spokesmen by themselves do not form basis to grant any relief to a person in a public law remedy to which he is not otherwise entitled to in law."
53. In Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Directorate of Enforcement [(2010) 4 SCC 772] the Court was dealing with the issue whether the alternative statutory remedy available under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 can be bypassed and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked. After examining the scheme of the Act, the Court observed: (SCC p. 781, paras 31-32) "31. When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance and that too in a fiscal statute, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. In this case the High Court is a statutory forum of appeal on a question of law. That should not be abdicated and given a go- by by a litigant for invoking the forum of judicial review of the High Court under writ jurisdiction. The High Court, with great respect, fell into a manifest error by not appreciating this aspect of the matter. It has however dismissed the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
32. No reason could be assigned by the appellant's counsel to demonstrate why the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 35 of FEMA does not provide an efficacious remedy. In fact there could hardly be any reason since the High Court itself is the appellate forum." Page 11 of 13
OA No. 330/188 of 2014
7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision, the High Court has seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the assessment order, by- passing the statutory remedies.
8. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, referred to hereinabove, are concerned, the question is not about the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the question is about the entertainability of the writ petition against the order of assessment by-passing the statutory remedy of appeal. There are serious disputes on facts as to whether the assessment order was passed on 20.03.2020 or 14.07.2020 (as alleged by the assessee). No valid reasons have been shown by the assessee to by-pass the statutory remedy of appeal. This Court has consistently taken the view that when there is an alternate remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions.
9. In view of the above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition against the assessment order. The High Court ought to have relegated the writ petitioner - assessee to avail the PUNIT KUMAR statutory remedy of appeal and thereafter to avail other remedies MISHRA provided under the statute.
10. Further even where the matter had remained pending before the Court for substantial period there was nothing wrong or illegal in relegating the party to approach the Appellate Authority provided under the Rule. There can be no issue that the Appellate Authority would be having wider scope and jurisdiction as compared to this Court and therefore, apparently no prejudice can be caused to the applicant. It is also an admitted fact that there is no interim order operative in favour of the applicant during the pendency of this Original Application. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Allahabad High Court in case of Sitaram Vishwakarma Vs. Engineer in Chief, PWD and Others, reported in (2012) 8 ADJ 574 (DB). Relevant para of the said judgment is quoted as under:-
The second argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the Writ Court ought to have heard the petition on merits also cannot be accepted in view of the settled legal preposition that where an alternative remedy is available, Page 12 of 13 OA No. 330/188 of 2014 the Writ Court would be slow in entertaining the petitions directly. Further even where the matter had remained pending before the Writ Court for substantial period there was nothing wrong or illegal in relegating the party to approach the Appellate Authority provided under the statute. There can be no issue that the Appellate Authority would be having wider scope and jurisdiction as compared to the writ jurisdiction and, therefore, apparently no prejudice can be caused to the appellant. It is also an admitted fact that there is no interim order operative in favour of the appellant during the pendency of the writ petition.
11. In view of the above discussions, instant Original Application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable. However, the applicant is at liberty to avail the statutory remedy of appeal and other remedies available under the Rule. It is directed that if such a remedy is availed within a period of PUNIT KUMAR four weeks from today, the appellate authority shall decide and dispose MISHRA of the same on its own merits in accordance with law without raising any question of limitation, however, subject to fulfilling the other conditions, if any, under the Rules, governing in the field. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case in favour of either of the parties and it is for the appellate authority and/or appropriate authority to consider the appeal/proceedings on its/their own merits
12. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
13. No order as to costs.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial) PM/ Page 13 of 13