ORDER : P.Naveen Rao, J. The prayer sought in the writ petition reads as under: “…to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by calling for the records relating to the order of the order the Honble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dt.12.04.2021, in O.A/021/00316/2015 & MA/021/00681/2019, as unjust, contrary to law as the Hon’ble Administrative Member himself was a part of the proceedings there by void in law and also the proceedings of the 4th respondent bearing Charge Memo No. Union/Dlgs. Dated 06.06.2014 and quash the same for making ambiguous allegation against the petitioner while working as Postal Assistant, Amberpet SO during the period from 17.06.2013 and while functioning as Divisional Secretary, All India Postal Employees Union, Group ‘C’, Hyderabad South East Division issued a Bulletin No.14 dated 10.10.2013 in his name with designation as Divisional Secretary criticizing adversely the current and recent policies of the Central Government, issued a Bulletin No.13 dated 21.09.2013 in his name and also in the name of one Sri B Ramachander, the Divisional President of the AIPEU Group C, Hyderabad South East Division, criticizing the administration and functioning of the Divisional Head of Hyderabad South East Division, sought relief to a nonmember and fail to maintain devotion to duty, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Article 14, 1,6 19 and 311 of the Constitution of India and violative of statutory rules on the subject matter and is against the principles of natural Justice apart from vindictive manner, intended to penalize the Union Office Bearer and without power and authority under the rules in as much as disciplinary authority was issued Charge Memo on the basis of the circular of then C.P.M.G, the present Hon’ble Administrative Member, who rendered the final order, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N.Rajeshwar Rao, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents. 3. Petitioner is applicant in OA/021/00316/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. The said O.A. was instituted challenging the drawing of Charge Memo dated 06.06.2014. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. by order dated 12.04.2021. 4. The petitioner is working as Sub-Post Master. 3. Petitioner is applicant in OA/021/00316/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. The said O.A. was instituted challenging the drawing of Charge Memo dated 06.06.2014. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. by order dated 12.04.2021. 4. The petitioner is working as Sub-Post Master. He was elected as Divisional Secretary to the All India Postal Employees Union, Hyderabad, South East Division. On 27.09.2013, Chief Post Master General issued directions to various unit heads. The focus of the order is on opening of accounts in branch offices. The target fixed is 500 accounts in two months and the staff were asked to pay special attention to create at least nine accounts per day. The unit heads were directed to upload the information of creation of accounts and further directions were issued to controlling authorities upto the level of Regional Post Masters General and Directors to monitor the progress. The intensity of the drive can be understood by noting the words used by the Chief Post Master General in the last paragraph which read as, “raining of accounts in the said period”. 5. The postal employees were upset with the kind of directions issued by the Chief Post Master General. They appears to have lodged their protest. Disturbed by these directions impacting them and their working conditions, the union issued an internal circular to all its members on 10.10.2013. This circular takes exception to the directions issued by Chief Post Master General and also makes certain comments against officials in taking recourse to creating large number of new accounts and the local level officials resorting to splitting the existing accounts and creating multiple accounts causing lot of hardship and suffering to the staff working at the ground level. This internal circular was signed by the petitioner as its Divisional Secretary. Obviously, the Chief Post Master General was upset with the tone and tenor of the circular and the resistance in enforcing the directions issued by him. This resulted in initiating disciplinary action against petitioner by drawing of Charge Memo dated 06.06.2014, particularly charges 1 and 2 directly deal with tone and tenor of the internal circular issued on 10.10.2013 signed by the petitioner. 6. The Tribunal did not agree with the submissions urged by the petitioner and dismissed the O.A. upholding the disciplinary action initiated against him. 6. The Tribunal did not agree with the submissions urged by the petitioner and dismissed the O.A. upholding the disciplinary action initiated against him. It now emerges that Administrative Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, who is part of the Division Bench, which decided the case of the petitioner, was the Chief Post Master General, who issued the circular on 27.09.2013, which created lot of ruckus among the employees leading to publication of internal circular by the union signed by the petitioner. 7. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, as the charges 1 and 2 specifically deal with the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner by making comments against the Chief Post Master General and contents of the circular, he could not have decided the O.A. and the order of the Tribunal is vitiated on this ground alone. 8. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that what is alleged against the internal circular issued by the union, which is the basis to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is a circular issued by the trade union. Since he is Divisional Secretary of the trade union, he signed the circular in that capacity, whereas the disciplinary action is initiated against him in his individual capacity attributing the allegations leading to the issuance of the said circular by the union, to the petitioner. If the contents of the circular are not acceptable to the respondents and that the tone and tenor of the circular is offending and amounts to disrespecting the senior officers of the department, at the most they could have taken action against the trade union. The petitioner has not committed any misconduct in his capacity as employee of the respondent department and whatever decision is taken by the trade union was only communicated by him as its Divisional Secretary. 9. Learned counsel representing learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that the tone and tenor of internal circular issued by the union is highly offending and amounts to clear disobedience of the authority of the Chief Post Master General. As an employee, the petitioner ought not to have signed the circular even in his capacity as a Divisional Secretary. Therefore, the petitioner has conducted a grave misconduct and there is no illegality in taking disciplinary action against him. 10. We found merit in the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As an employee, the petitioner ought not to have signed the circular even in his capacity as a Divisional Secretary. Therefore, the petitioner has conducted a grave misconduct and there is no illegality in taking disciplinary action against him. 10. We found merit in the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As the administrative member was the Chief Post Master General and whose orders date 27.09.2013 were the subject matter of debate and discussion and criticism by the union in their internal circular leading to initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner, in all fairness the said administrative member ought not to have sat in the bench to decide the issue. We do not intend to express our opinion any further and allow the writ petition by setting aside the order of the Tribunal. Since the order of the Tribunal is set aside on the only ground that the administrative member forming part of the division bench which decided the O.A. was earlier Chief Post Master General, who issued the concerned orders, we are not expressing any opinion on the other submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. We leave it open to the petitioner to raise all pleas as available in law before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Tribunal may permit the petitioner to raise the additional grounds in support of his plea and after affording due opportunity to the respondents, take appropriate decision, as warranted by law. 11. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.