Dismissed¶79

Mr Ravindra Naik K v. Union of India

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2025WP/9495/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka; WP No. 9495 of 2025 (S-CAT); ex-GDS MD Thalaghattapura BO; termination dated 12.03.2013 under Rule 8(1) Gramina Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011; 487 undelivered ordinary mails found in mahazar; alleged stigmatic termination without charge or enquiry; revision petition to Postmaster General filed 05.06.2023, rejected 31.07.2023; CAT Bengaluru O.A. 170/00436/2023 order dated 06.06.2024; laches — unexplained 10-year delay held fatal; Articles 226 and 227; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Except the bare assertion of serious illness to explain the ten-year delay, the petitioner produced no document to show the serious illness he was suffering; there is no plausible explanation for the delay of 10 years in calling in question the order of termination. ¶71

Mr Ravindra Naik K Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶79

Issue for consideration

Whether the termination of the applicant's services without framing a charge and without holding any enquiry, on the basis of a public complaint, amounts to a stigmatic order and is unsustainable in law. +1 more

¶58

Ratio / Principle

¶71

Key takeaways

The explanation offered for the delay in approaching the Revisional Authority is very vague and nebulous; an unexplained delay of 10 years is not appreciated, as delay defeats all rights.ratio¶74
Finality attained cannot be permitted to be reopened where there is unreasonable lapse of delay; the unexplained delay of 10 years in calling in question the order of termination is fatal to the case.ratio¶75
On scrutiny of the entire case papers, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal; ignoring the obvious and enormous delay would foster injustice.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka (oral order per T.M. Nadaf J., countersigned by B M Shyam Prasad J.) dismissed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by an ex-GDS MD, Thalaghattapura BO, challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench order dated 06.06.2024 in O.A. No.170/00436/2023, which had declined to interfere with (i) his termination dated 12.03.2013 under Rule 8(1) of the Gramina Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement), Rules 2011, after 487 ordinary mails of 28 different days were found undelivered in his room and he had admitted the mistake, and (ii) the Postmaster General's order dated 31.07.2023 dismissing his revision petition submitted on 05.06.2023 after ten years. Held: except the assertion of serious illness, the petitioner produced no document substantiating the illness pleaded to explain the delay; there was no plausible explanation for the ten-year delay, the explanation being vague and nebulous; an unexplained delay of ten years is fatal to the case and finality attained cannot be reopened upon unreasonable lapse of delay; accordingly there was no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order and the petition was dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46584-DB WP No. 9495 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 9495 OF 2025 (S-CAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR RAVINDRA NAIK K., S/O SRI KALLE NAIK AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS EX GDS MD, THALAGHATTAPURA BO, A/W DODDAKALLASANDRA SO, BENGALURU - 560 109 R/AT K. SEVALAL PURA KYATAGANAKERE POST PAVAGADA TALUK TUMAKURU - 572 136.

¶11

Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SMT. KALPANA P.V, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

UNION OF INDIA BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶16

POSTMASTER GENERAL BENGALURU HQ REGION, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:46584-DB WP No. 9495 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION III, BENGALURU - 560070.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. NAYANA TARA B.G., CGSC FOR R1 TO R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO a). ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH ORDER DATED 06.06.2024 IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION 170/00436/2023 WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

¶27

The unsuccessful applicant in Application

¶28

No.436/2023, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru ('Tribunal' for short) is before us in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the order dated 06.06.2024. The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the application declining to interfere with the orders at Annexure-A2 and Annexure-A5.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46584-DB WP No. 9495 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

The parties are referred to as per the rankings

¶32

before the Tribunal.

¶33

A brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:-

¶34

The applicant was appointed as GDS MD,

¶35

Thalaghattapura BO, Bengaluru on 01.02.2013. Within a

¶36

span of one month, a complaint was filed by one Smt.Asmita Bodsmiya about non receipt of ordinary mails to her. The applicant on enquiry informed that he has kept the mails in his room assigned to him to deliver. As per instructions, Sri.S.Somashekhar, BPM. Thalaghattapura Branch, took his staff to the room of the applicant at Nagegowdanapalya,

¶37

there he found three bags containing mails undelivered. A mahazar was done in the presence of the officer and other mahazar witnesses and it was found that totally 487 ordinary mails of all category belonging to 28 different days with effect from 06.02.2013 to 09.03.2013 especially after the date 11.02.2013, the date on which they were entrusted

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46584-DB WP No. 9495 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

to the applicant to serve were undelivered and kept in his

¶41

room.

¶42

Upon enquiry, the ASPOs, Bengaluru South Sub Division-III, found that the maximum articles kept without delivery by the applicant was found to be first class mails and addressed to very important addressees like, individuals, schools, State Government offices, telephone subscribers and sent by State Government offices, leading Banks, NGOs, BSNL etc, with full correct addresses noted by the sender and these mails were deliberately kept without delivering. The applicant in the enquiry has admitted his mistake voluntarily in a statement given before the officer stated supra, i.e., in the presence of Sri. S.Somashekar, BPM and Sri.Rama Krishna, Mail Overseer-3 on 11.03.2013.

¶43

Having found the deliberate mistake and dereliction on the part of the applicant, the ASPOs, Bengaluru South Sub Division-III, found that continuing the service of applicant is not advisable and in view of the

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46584-DB WP No. 9495 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

admissions, the services of the applicant has been terminated by order dated 12.03.2013.

¶47

The applicant after 10 years on 05.06.2023

¶48

submitted a petition before the Postmaster General against the order of termination.

¶49

The Postmaster General while considering the revision petition found that the order of appointment clearly indicates that the engagement of applicant to the post is on provisional basis. The Postmaster General further found that the termination order was issued under Rule 8(1) of Gramina Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement), Rules 2011 ('Rules of 2011' for short). Rule 8(1) of Rules of 2011 describes that- "the engagement of a Sevak who has not already rendered more than 3 years continuous engagement from the date of his engagement shall be liable to be terminated at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Engaging Authority".

¶50

The Postmaster General after considering the entire material in the teeth of admission by the applicant

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46584-DB WP No. 9495 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

has held that the applicant while he was working as a GDS MD has failed completely in satisfactorily discharging his duties and has been responsible for tarnishing the image of the department as he has not come up to the expectations of the department in serving the public, which is the main motto of service of the department of post, that apart on the delay in challenging the order of termination is not properly explained. The Postmaster General in the petition having considered the case both on delay as well as on merits dismissed the revision petition confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

¶54

Aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by the Postmaster General and the order of termination dated 12.03.2013 passed by the ASPOs, Bengaluru South Sub Division-III, Bengaluru-560085, the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.436/2023.

¶55

Before the Tribunal, the applicant has contended that he has worked for more than one month. On the alleged non-delivery of ordinary letters, the third respondent has

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46584-DB WP No. 9495 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

terminated him from the service without framing a charge and without holding any enquiry. The services have been terminated under Rule 8(1) of Rules of 2011, without enquiry on the basis of the complaint by the public and on false allegation amounts to a stigma.

¶59

The applicant has further submitted that as he was suffering from serious illness and was under depression, he could not take any action against the order of termination. Immediately after recovering from the illness, he preferred a petition on 05.06.2023 before the second respondent-Postmaster General. He further states that the Revisional Authority without properly considering his case dismissed the petition.

¶60

The Tribunal, upon material placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, found that there is an inordinate delay in calling in question the order of termination in revision before the Revisional Authority and found that neither the order of termination caused any stigma on the carrier of the applicant nor there

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46584-DB WP No. 9495 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

is a proper/plausible explanation to the delay in approaching the Appellate Authority, hence dismissed the application. It is this order passed by the Tribunal is called in question in the present petition.

¶64

Heard Smt.Kalpana P.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Nayana Tara B.G, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for first and third respondent.

¶65

Smt.Kalpana P.V, reiterating the grounds urged before the Tribunal submits that the termination order without any charge on the allegations amounts to a stigmatic order on the career of the applicant. Though there is delay, the same has been plausibly explained stating that he was suffering from ill-health. She further submits that the termination per se is unsustainable and illegal for short of holding any enquiry and opposed to the provisions of law

¶66

is nonest, in these circumstances, the delay in challenging cannot be held against the applicant. With this she sought

¶67

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:46584-DB WP No. 9495 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

to allow the petition and set-aside the order passed by the Tribunal and consequently allow the application.

¶70

Refuting to the submissions of Smt.Nayana Tara B.G, with all vehemence submits that the order passed does not amount to a stigmatic order. As per Rule 8, a person who has not rendered continuous 3 years of service can be terminated from the service at any time by a notice in writing. The delay in approaching the Revisional Authority is not properly explained. The Tribunal after considering the entire material in its judicial review, held that the delay has not been properly explained and that it has not resulted in any stigma, and therefore dismissed the application. The order impugned therefore, does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the petition.

¶71

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire writ petition papers. Except stating the serious illness for the delay of 10 years, the petitioner has not produced any document to show the serious illness he was suffering. There is no

¶72

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:46584-DB WP No. 9495 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

plausible explanation for the delay of 10 years in calling in question the order of termination. The applicant was appointed in February 2013, within a span of one month he was found unfit and was terminated from service. The petitioner has not discharged his duty and caused inconvenience to the public at large and tarnished the image of a service oriented department engaged in essential public service. The explanation to delay in approaching the Revisional Authority is very vague and nebulous. An unexplained delay of 10 years with exceptional circumstances is not appreciated, as the delay defeats all the rights.

¶75

On scrutiny of the entire case papers, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. This Court, if it ignores the obvious and enormous delay, will foster injustice. A finality attained cannot be permitted to re-open if there is unreasonable lapse of delay. The unexplained delay of 10 years calling in question the order of termination is fatal to the case.

¶76