Ex Parte Inquiry of a Gramin Dak Sevak: What the CAT Said in Brijesh Kumar
An ex parte inquiry against a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) is not, by that fact alone, a breach of natural justice. On 16 October 2026 the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, applied that principle to a GDS Branch Postmaster in Brijesh Kumar v. Union of India, O.A. No. 1034 of 2022 (2026 SCC OnLine CAT 1367). This note sets out what the Tribunal decided and what it did not.
The facts in brief
The applicant was engaged as GDS Branch Postmaster at Garhiya Govindpur, District Mainpuri, in 1989. He was put off duty on 29.09.2015 and charge-sheeted on 21.01.2016 under the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. The charges, as the respondents put them, covered misbehaviour with departmental officials, failure to hand over charge, and retention of government money. The applicant’s case was that the proceedings were retaliation for his complaints about an inspection in 2008.
The first inquiry ended ex parte in dismissal on 31.05.2017. After the applicant approached the Tribunal (O.A. No. 732/2018), the appellate authority set aside that process on 12.10.2018 and ordered a de novo inquiry from the stage of appointing the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. Both were appointed on 20.11.2018. Fourteen dates were fixed between 12.02.2019 and 12.04.2021, and the applicant attended none. Instead, he challenged the de novo order in a separate O.A. The inquiry concluded ex parte, and the disciplinary authority ordered his discharge from engagement with monetary benefits on 29.09.2021. His appeal failed on 30.08.2022.
What the Tribunal held on the ex parte inquiry
The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. on three connected points.
- Opportunity was given and not used. The inquiry report recorded that letters went to the applicant for each of the fourteen dates. The Tribunal treated that as sufficient opportunity, and held that an employee who knows of the proceedings and stays away cannot later complain about natural justice.
- The applicant’s authorities did not help him on these facts. He relied on decisions on effective opportunity of defence, the need for evidence behind a finding, and proportionality of punishment. The Tribunal said he had not shown that the inquiry was held without any opportunity to defend, which was the premise those decisions needed.
- Review is narrow. Following S.R. Tewari v. Union of India, the Tribunal reiterated that it examines the correctness of the process and does not re-weigh the evidence. Interference with punishment is reserved for cases that shock the conscience, and the Tribunal must give reasons if it finds a penalty disproportionate.
What the order does not decide
The order does not examine the four allegations on their merits. It also does not separately deal with the applicant’s argument on delay, or his argument that the 2008 inspection complaints were never investigated. The respondents’ stand that the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 do not apply to GDS employees is recorded, but the Tribunal does not rule on it. The finding on opportunity rests on the Inquiry Officer’s record of notices, so a dispute over service of those notices would have been a different case.
Practical points for a GDS facing an inquiry
These are general observations on the decision, not advice on any particular matter.
- Filing a separate challenge to an inquiry order does not by itself excuse non-appearance before the Inquiry Officer. Unless a stay is obtained, the inquiry can go on.
- If attendance is genuinely impossible, for example through illness, the reason should be put in writing to the Inquiry Officer with supporting documents, so that it is on the inquiry record.
- A defence statement, a request for documents and cross-examination of witnesses can only be made in the inquiry. Grounds on the evidence become hard to run after the employee has stayed out.
- Allegations of departmental bias or victimisation are better raised before the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority, and again in the statutory appeal.
Frequently asked questions
Is an ex parte inquiry against a GDS valid?
Not automatically invalid. In this order the ex parte inquiry stood because the Tribunal found that the GDS had been given sufficient opportunity and chose not to use it. The result depends on the facts, particularly on the record of notices.
Does filing an O.A. against the inquiry excuse non-appearance?
The order records that the applicant filed a separate O.A. instead of attending the de novo inquiry. The Tribunal still held that he had been afforded sufficient opportunity. The order does not say whether he sought a stay.
Is this order binding on the CAT Jabalpur Bench?
No. It is an order of the Allahabad Bench, so it is persuasive for the Jabalpur Bench, and it turns on its facts, in particular the fourteen unattended dates.
For other pieces on penalties and enquiries, see our notes on punishment and parity among co-delinquents and back wages after acquittal under Fundamental Rule 54-B. The full list is in the Disciplinary Proceedings section of the CAT Service Law Guide.
General information only. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an advocate-client relationship.
14+ years at the bar. Practises in service and constitutional law at the Principal Seat of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur, and before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench.
Phone: +91 91794 64341