Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Sharda Prasad Singh vs Union Of India on 17 November, 2025
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00037/2017 Sharda Prasad Singh Vs. UOI & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/0037 of 2017
Dated, this 17th day of November, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Sharda Prasad Singh aged about 51 years, son of Shri Janardan
Singh, Address - Village & Post - Arjunpur (Bharkhar), District-
Sultanpur.
..... Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through the Chief Post Master General, UP Region,
Lucknow.
2. The Director, Postal Services, Lucknow Region, Lucknow.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Sultanpur Division, Sultanpur.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Sultapur.
......Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to removal from engagement of Gramin Dak Sevak, the applicant has sought following reliefs:
"1. To quash the impugned order dated 23.12.2016, 16.01.2014 (served through letter dated 17.01.2014) and order dated 04.02.2013 contained as Annexure No. A-1, A-2 and A-3 to this OA, with all consequential benefits.
2. To reinstate the applicant in service and pay him salary and other admissible dues.
3. To release the arrears of pay for the period the applicant remained out of employment on account of operation of impugned orders alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of due till the actual date of payment.
4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.
5. Cost of the present case."Page 1 of 5
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00037/2017 Sharda Prasad Singh Vs. UOI & Ors.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant, who was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS, hereafter) on compassionate grounds by the respondents vide order dated 29.08.2011, was convicted vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2011 in criminal case no. 342/96 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 436, 427 and 506 of IPC and section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Following the conviction, the applicant was issued a show cause notice dated 17.01.2013 and removed from engagement vide order dated 04.02.2013. His appeal dated 04.06.2013 was rejected vide order dated 16.01.2014. Subsequently, the applicant was acquitted by Hon'ble High Court vide judgment and order dated 03.09.2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 2012. Following the acquittal, he represented on 24.09.2015 for re- instatement, but respondents issued a show cause notice dated 29.11.2016, and after considering the applicant's reply dated 07.12.2016, rejected his representation vide order dated 23.12.2016. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. The applicant's contention is that as his removal from engagement was based solely on his conviction, he is entitled to be reinstated as the conviction has been set aside on appeal.
4. Per contra, the respondents contend that the applicant was in jail from 14.12.2011 to 03.09.2015, his acquittal was based on benefit of doubt and he has not been fully and clearly acquitted and, therefore, his character was not found good for the civil post of GDS and as such his representation for reinstatement was rejected.
5. We have heard both the parties.
6.1 A perusal of the order dated 04.02.2013 of the disciplinary authority reveals that the applicant's removal from engagement was based on his conviction. The appellate authority, vide order dated Page 2 of 5 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00037/2017 Sharda Prasad Singh Vs. UOI & Ors. 16.01.2014, rejected the applicant's appeal observing that as per rule 11(i) of the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011, the provision of rule 10 stipulating enquiry shall not apply where penalty is imposed on the ground of conduct which has led to conviction on a criminal charge.
6.2 The conclusive part of the judgment and order dated 03.09.2015 acquitting the applicant and others in Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 2012 reads as follows:
"23. In view of the facts and circumstances, and evidence adduced by the prosecution and from perusal of the evidence of PW 1, 2 and 3 only this much can be said that they have proved the incident, which took place on 17.07.1996 in which three persons were beaten to death and two persons received injuries. However, the prosecution failed to prove the case against appellants beyond reasonable doubt to prove the guilt of the appellants. Hence appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt.
24. In view of the facts and circumstances and above noted discussion, judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.12.2011 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Sultanpur, in S.T. No. 29/1997, State Vs Hari Bahadur Singh and 23 others, arising out of case crime no. 342 of 1996, under section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 436, 437, 506 IPC and Section 7 of Crl. Law Amendment Act, P.S. Lambhua, District Sultanpur, is hereby set aside. All the appellants shall be released forthwith in the present case provided all the appellants furnish two sureties and a personal bond of the amount fixed by C.J.M., Sultanpur to the satisfaction of C.J.M. as per the provisions of section 437-A Cr.P.C.
25. Accordingly, all the above noted seventeen appeals are hereby allowed."
(emphasis supplied) The conviction and sentence of the applicant having been set aside by Hon'ble High Court in appeal, the very foundation of the applicant's removal from engagement crumbles, in our view.
6.3 Learned counsel for the respondents cites judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors vs Sitaram Mishra & Anr Civil Appeal No. 6183 of 2010. In Sitaram Mishra (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"13. It is undoubtedly correct that the charge in the criminal trial arose from the death of a co-employee in the course of the incident Page 3 of 5 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00037/2017 Sharda Prasad Singh Vs. UOI & Ors.
resulting from firing of a bullet which took place from the weapon which was assigned to the first respondent as a member of the Force. But the charge of misconduct is on the ground of the negligence of the first respondents in handling his weapon and his failure to comply with the departmental instructions in regard to the manner in which the weapon should be handled. Consequently, the acquittal in the criminal case was not a ground for setting aside the penalty which was imposed in the course of the disciplinary enquiry. Hence, having regard to the parameters that govern the exercise of judicial review in disciplinary matters, we are of the view that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is unsustainable."
(emphasis supplied) It is evident that the Apex Court noticed the difference between the charges in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings in Sitaram Mishra (supra). However, in the case at hand, it is observed that there was no departmental charge or enquiry and the removal from engagement was based on the applicant's conviction in the criminal case. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the case at hand are different from Sitaram Mishra (supra).
6.4 In Maharana Pratap Singh vs The State of Bihar & Ors Civil Appeal No. 5497 of 2025, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
"47. While an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to have an order of setting aside of his dismissal from public service following disciplinary proceedings, it is well-established that when the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, the situation assumes a different context. In such cases, upholding the findings in the disciplinary proceedings would be unjust, unfair, and oppressive. This is a position settled by the decision in G M Tank (supra), since reinforced by a decision of recent origin in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2024) 1 SCC 175."
(emphasis supplied) In the present case, the conviction in the criminal case being the only basis of removal from engagement, the subsequent acquittal on appeal cannot be ignored at all; in fact, it removes the very basis of the punishment, in our opinion.
Page 4 of 5
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00037/2017 Sharda Prasad Singh Vs. UOI & Ors. 7.1 In view of the foregoing, the impugned orders dated 04.02.2013, 16.01.2014 and 23.12.2016 are quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant with effect from the date of acquittal with consequential benefits on notional basis as per the extant rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
7.2 Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.
7.3 The Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
Vidya Ben Digitally signed by
Vidya Ben Waghela
Waghela Date: 2025.11.18
16:20:06 +05'30'
Page 5 of 5