Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Prangya Paramita Panigrahy vs D/O Post on 20 September, 2023
4 B44 ae PE x iA Ne.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH Original Application No. 260/00264 /2024 | Reserved aa: SLI. 2023 Pronounced on > 20,09 2023 CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Member {Admn.) Prary Paramita Panigeahy, aged about 24 years, D/a Ramakrishna Panigrahy & Wyo - Bro Anil Kumar Ch oudhury, resident af At - Vo nivihar, S 4rd | Lane, POY BS.
\ska, Dist- Ganjam, Cdisha, PIN- 761110, presently working as Postal Assistant [PA}, Aska 0, BIN -
POLITE. (Gr 0} ee smo P PHC For the Applicant: Mr. OP Sahani, Counsel VERSUS 4, Union of India, represented through its Secretary ar Posts, Dak Shawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 1) LIMAM.
2, Chief Post Mas ter General, OQdisha Circle, Ab/P.O. Bhuhaneswar, Dist - Khurda, Qdisha - 7S7001, Serhan mpur Region, Oo | ~ {Ganjam} | Directar of Postal Services, MG, Berhampur Rerion, Aska Division, Aska Respondents for the respandents: Mr. Bowaln, Counsel < DAA, SHG aes 2G P2081 O RPE R Pramad Kumar Das, Member Ak:
cd. Counsel for the applicant submits thet t the applicant, working as Postal Assistant, Absa HU, w as issued charge sh eat | under Rule 16 of ecS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide ee oe 4 pei wr, booed re we one pod yo a ng = Pe rath ox % 4 spit aaet pane spn hat a a, ae eres RE pe eee ese os Se BO /Sub-S dated OZ TL2020 on the allegations that while wor KE as SBPA af K abisuryanagar sO fer the period fromm S2.Q2.201F fo LTOS2017, 20.05.2017 to TP0GL01Y and 20.06.2017 to 14082017 due to her omission and commission, One Sri Madhaba Naik, GOS BPM, Sialia BO misappropriated the public money, Tt has heen alleged that had the applicant acted! as per mulegfprocedure, the fraudulent sransaction dated 11.11.2016 for Rs. 27000/- could have been detected earlier and subsequent fraud commits don 26.09.2017, QUAL2017 and 27.06.2018 to the tune of Rs. 66603 /-, S412 and Th 14ao1e/- opuld have heen averted. Vide applicatinn dated LLDL2026, she asked for supply of ten relevat ¢ documents Gul she wes allowed fo peruse onby four documents. She submath read his defence representaliat on 16-12. 2020 refuting the allegations. However, the [isciplinary Authority (Resp. Nod} vide ore der dated TLGiao2g1 (A/6) imposed the punishment of recavery of Ks. 2,00,000/> @ 1 G,000/- per month wal lanuary 2021 towards a portion af outstanding amount in Sialia BO fraud case. Appeal preferred by the applicant on 1.012021 has been rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 23 OF 2021, Being avarieved, the present GA has been fled by the applicant praying to quash the charge memo dated Qc DL2c0c0 fAanexure-Af2), the impugned order of punishment vide Memo No. P4-2 2018-19 /Sisia BO/Sub-8 dated L101.2021 (Annexure -A/6) and the order of Appellate Authority vide Memo No. ST/O6-O1/21 dated 22.04.2021 (Annesure A/9} and, consequently, te direct the respondents fo re 'fur the already recovered amount
2. Respondents have led counter contesting the case of the Applicant. The Applicant has alsa Med rejoinder.
3. he specific case of the applicant is that she was selected and posted as Treasurer, Kabisuryanagar SO vide order dated 15.08.2016 fA/1} and she was working as such during the period, in queshon, an rif not as SBPA as alleged fm the charge memo. In his defence representatinn, applicant had takes the stand that no order was issued to her to work as SBPA for man in its entirety. To ry substantiate above stand, she had asked for Nominal Roll, which was ay vos TP REY TERS & MMENG, 2605 order dated 17.03.2021 (A/10) discloses that Nominal Roll is not avatlable. Further, the fraud has been committed by Sri Madhaba Naik, OPS BPM, Sighe BO when the applicant was working as FA, Kabisuryanagar 50 and she was no way related to fraud committed at Siatiy BO. tb is suboriitted that the charges operand! of the fraud have not been moentic POSE Manual Vol-d, the concerned BPM of the Assistant of the SOQ, has to collect the passhooks and send to account es ee * oe ee rn eo " Sey ES % ~ ~ yi Sy Sieh ee ra ey Sh affice for entry of interest, Since {he appicant Was WaMaNg &s PP ee oo e BE PSR Pa eae eae prey ee SPS Xo See gig ty pay y ¢ wy oe Bete BENS ae Treasurer, Ksbisurvanagar SQ, she is not authorise aubfempowered fo & Ra SS 3 .
maintain and verify the Register of Accounts and send to Inspector of alleged {n the charge memo as per Rule FSCLIGH) As ger Rule aoe 7S$C1}Giv), the GDS BPM of the BO has to prepare the list and send to SQ and the concerned Sub-Postmaster has to verify the same on receipt of passhaoks, 31 Question No. 16 (B) of BO Inspection Questionnaire fAfi2} xtipulates that, "Check whether the BPM has emfected the SE pass books not presented for transaction by 30th june af tie year and sent he same to the HO with » list in duplicate by 15th July for entry of > spterest, [f not done direct the BPM to do so immediately", It is the duty of the inspecting afficer, [PYASP/ Division: al Sapdt, ta instruct the GDSBEPM, Siala BO to sent all SB Passhooks to SQ for interest pasting during their inspections /visits. Further, as per the Rule - 7SCLH wit) of the POSS Manual Vol], the Divisional SPOS (Respondent No. 4} has ta furnish a certifieate to the Head of Circle (Respandent No. 2) by 30th September that the work of verification of balances in respect of all accounts fa the manner prescribed has heen duly completed and Respondent No. 4 is competent to take action in case af non-submissian of passhooks for interest posting. With regard to t the allegation of non-
maintenance of register af SEB accuunts of f Silla SO at KRabisuryan tds submitted that the register has never been maintained even before the joining of the applicant at Kablsuryanagar SO which is admitted by the respondents at Annesure - A/4.
a wt So far as process of recovery of loss in a fraud cases, it is submitted that the same has been defined in Rule - 3(b) of Appendix - 4 of P & T FHR Vol-d and Rule - 3 (b} af Appendix - ft af GPR-2OLY oh fAnmesure - Af 13} which stipulates, in particular if loss has occurred through fraud, every endeavour should be made to recover the whole z od Rt MS OA No. amount last from the gullty persans and if laxity af supervision has faciiitated the fraud, the supervising affcer at fault may properly be penalized either directly by requiring him ta make gocd In money a sufficient portion of the loss or indirectly by reduction or stoppage of Nis Increrrents of pay'. if is submitted that, In the instant case, if responsibility of the supervision les with the SPM, Inspector, ASP and the Divisional Supdt. [Respondent No. 4). During the perlad, In question, visurvanagar SO and yen Sri Titencra Swain was working as regular SPM, Ka Sri Gola Behera, SBPA, being senior, was In dual charge af SPM in leave t vacancy in different occasions and doing his original duty as SUPA. Sri Gola Behera was proceeded under Rule- 1S of CCS (CCA) Rules. 1965 but was allowed fo fet off by awarding the punishment of 'Censure' only vide Memo dated 27.10.2020, althourh he was the regular SBPA and was in-charge of SPM for leave vacancy. {f is alleged that instead of recovery of loss from the princips! offender and/or from the concerned oy responsible officers, the applicant, who was working as a Treasurer has been made @ scapeguat, has beet imposed with the punishment of recovery of a hefty amount of Rs. 24N,000/- for her no fault. Applicant "
has relied on the fallowing decisions:
CY 3 OG) Mahavir F Yrasadl Ve. State of UP. AIX L870 SC TAGs, to claim that the order of respondent No.4 being unre: ied Is Hable fo be quashed,
(ii) Kuldip Singh Vs Commissioner af Palice & Ors, AIR 1999 SC GPS, Suspicion ar presuniption cannot take the place of proof even In domestic Inquiry.
(ii) Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs. Delhi Administration through secretary {Labour} & Ors. AUR 1984 SC 1805: Findings based on no legs de evidence and based on confectures and Surmuscs stands vitiated.
(iv} Satyabadi Barik Vs. UOh & Ors, Swany's CL Digest 1995/1 page 328;
ecovery order passed by the DA Is Inv: alid unless nugligence flapses che part of the gavernment servant had a nk with the loss sustained by che government and are proved, fy) Sukomal Bag Vs. WO T& Ors, OA 34/2009 of this Bench, up sheld by che Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in WLC) Na. 4843/2011) for any pecuniary loss caused by fraud of another employee, applicant should nat be punished, Accordingly, the 2p wplicant has prayed for the relief as claimed! in the OA, & tal Counsel for the respondents, on the other side, submits that the Applicant while working as Postal Assistant, Kabisuryanagar Sub-
fice during the pe "siod frenm TSAhO.2 2015 te 2S UE Sb? had warked i A Na.
97Savings Bank Branch as savings Rank Counter Assistant for the period from BRODROIY fo TF G5.2017, 2005.01" to VP S20ly and +O. 06.2017 to 14.08.2017. The Branch Postmaster, Slalia Sranch Office sad not collected the pass bouks of all savings accounts, whic Hoawere ot presented for transaction at his office by 30. O8.SO17, and falled to send the same to the Account OMece, Kabisuryanagar SQ with a Hist in duplicate fer entry of interest by (SUP. 2077 as req wired under P51) of Post Office Savings Bank Mi anual Volume 1 (Sixth edition:
corrected up toe faly- 2012) (AnnesuresA/11). As SB Counter Assistant, & was the duty of the applicant fo maintain the prescribed register £0 a enter the particulars of the receipt of Pass Books of all Savings Accounts received from Sialis Branch Office at Kabisuryanagar Sub-Post Offes for pasting of annual interest starting from 1° Apri-Zo1? onwards and to cheek the register on 2007 207) so as (ance sytain the account numbers of the savings accounts, the pass books of which were not recelved for posting of annual interest, ARer checking thy register an 200 2007, was also the duty of the Applicant to prepare and senda Het of all such accounts to the Inspectar Posts, Aska{ East} Sub-Division for verification of balance as required under Rule -PSC}UND oF POSE Manual Valume> 4.
The applicant did not maintain We above Register and also did not send 8 GA No 268 che list fo Inspector of Posts for veri fication af balances, which enabled Sri Madhaba Nalk, GDS BPM, Selig Branch Post OQfice, fo misappropriate public money out ¢ of the transactions of Savings Account Naumber 7607071225 and 7697000747 of Sialia BO standing in the oy name of Trilochan Nahsk and Kamal Luchan Das reapectively, Sri Naik on LLAL2o16, 26.09.2017, 08112017 and 27.06.2018 respectively from SB account No. YGSTOP LESS, Similarly, he misappropriated % 4 ¢ 2 OE SE OAT Peas OR Acrsarrit fs SOOG/ -an SS. LAIG and Bs 88ad/- on 33 GS 2OTe fram SB accrunt No. 7697000747, The above Pass Bos aks were not received at Kabisuryanagar SQ for interest posting and alse the ap ypiicane failed to monitor this aspect as Savings Bank PA, Kabisuryanagar 50. Applicant ded against under Rule-t & of COS(CCAY Rules, 1965 for the a a pera "
re St gems aah we ne et rh ye Es oe, v ~ ote above lapses, which fscilitated the fraud at Sialia BQ, vide SPOs, Aska Diaision and could not be detected faverted, vide Memo dated OP 1L2020 (Annexure-A/2}. SPQs, Aska (Respandent Nod), giving all reasonable oppartunity ta the applicant and taking into aecount the defence representation of the applicant found the applic: charges aral vide Mero dated 1LOL2021 (Annexure-AyG) ipased the punishment of recovery of Rs 2.00.00 8 Rs L0G f+ per month from MG DA Na DAO fae) her pay wef January-2021 towards a portion of outstanding amount in Sialia BO fraud case, It has heen submitted that out of the requisitioned documents, the available documents related to the charges were supplied to the applicant for her perusal vide letter dated Q3.12.2020 fA/@) and the cause of non-supply of non-related /non-available documents were communicated to her. The AA having found the punishment commensurate with the gravity of affence, in a well reasoned order dated 23.04.2021 {Annexure-A/9}, upheld the order of the DA. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondents that, as alleged by the applicant, nowhere in the appellate order, the AA has mentioned that Sri Gola Behera had worked as Postal Assistant in Savings Bank Branch of Kabisuryanagar SOQ during the period in question.
41 The contention of the respondents is that as per the information < available in Office Order Book of the Postmaster Grade-l, the applicant was ordered to work as SEPA, Kabisuryanagar SO. During the period from 22.02.2017 to TP.0S2017, 20.05.2007 to LY.06.2017 and 20060017 to 14.06.2017, while performing her duties. the applicant did not adhere ts the procedure as laid down in Rule 75(1)00) GA Nas of POSR Marual Vilume-} (A/11} and did net maintain the register containing the prescribed format to enter the partic udars of the receipe of Passhooks of all Savings Account received from Siulia BO at Kabisuryanagar $C for posting of annual Interest starting fram Ts April, 2017 orwards and check the register on 20.07. 2017 to ascertain the account numbers of the savings accounts, the passbooks of which were not received for posting of annual interest and then prepare and send a Gist af all such accounts to the inspector of Posts, Aska CEast} Sub- Iivision for verification af balance.
42 With regard to the allegation that the applicant has been made scapegoat, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel tor the respondents that the total misappropriated amount by the principal offender, as on date of issue of charge sheet to the applicant, in Siala BO fraud case is RS.9,.25,746/-, Sri MSanjay Kumar Dora, Ex-IP, Aska (East $Sub-Division, Sri Mano] Kumar Behera, Ex-[P, Aska {Rast} Sub-Div ian, Sri Tarini Charan Padhy, Ex-ASPOS (4Q), Oye the SFOs, Aska Division, Sri Htendra Swain, Ex-Postmaster Grade-1, Kabisuryanagar SO have already been proceeded under Rule 16 of the CCCS CCCA} Rules, 1865 sepa rately and * have been penalized.
32 CEA Ma. g 45 Accordingl the respondents, by stating that there was no wiglation of any rale in the departmental proceeding and the order was passed affer giving due opportunity te the applicant and by complying with the natural justice, have prayed
5. As it would reveal from discussians made above, the main thumb point of the applicant is that vide erder dated 15.09 2016 (A/1}, the applicant was selected and entrusted the work af 'Treasurer in ay to look into the work alleged! to have been deviated failed to discharge. This Stand she had also taken in his reply to the show cause dated 16.12.2020 (A/S) stating Inter alla as under:
"Secondly, the order buok senna af Kablsuryanagar SO shew to me no where mentioned army dirsctian fo mee to work as SEPA as mentioned in charges s rather | i owar ne AN PA tn counter during mentioned period af my charges with works entrusted to me as under.
22.08 207% to TP OS.20T? -MPCM counter POOS SOV? to TPQA2OTY --MPCM counter with arder to manage SB counter.
20.06.2017 to 4.08. 2017 > treasury branch with addition ofmanaging S58 counter, _ Therefars, no order was issued to me to work as SBPS for managing SB branch tn its entirety. The mrentions mace in the charges therefore stand neither proved nar the a kas GA Na. Tae Seed a reasons fer showing S8 iournal, & g journal and corroborative evidence a8 well"
G The GA in his arder of gunishment has stated that "the working period of the official In Kabisuryanagar SO as SBPA was from 32.02.2017 to 17052017, 2O.05.2017 to 17062017 and from 28.06.2017 to 14.08.2017, which ts confirmed on verification of the order book maintained by the then Pastriaster © ride-], Kabisuryanager SO and Attendance register af the office and, that, as 8 PA she failed tu discharge his duties in the manner provided under Rule FSCLIGN ans fi} af POSB Manual Vol. { (sixth Rdition-Corrected up to July, £0 can which is unbecoming on the part af a government servant as per the provisions of Rule SPA} ef CCS {Conduct} Rules, Load.
7 'The applicant submitted his appeal specifically stating therein as yunders Yhe fact remains that fo know the Staff/PA worked as sepa of K.S.Nagar, SO on given dates can only be known from Nominal Roll maintained in form MS-12 4 miler Rule-
42) of Postal Manual Vor-Vi (Part-1) which stipulates, "A nominal Rell af the assistants should he maintained in form AIS-12 in gach office fo serve aoa record of the Assistants actually at work an any given day. The ne minal) Roll should be written up by the Postmaster whenever a change, either temporary or permanent as made to the duty ofany member af clerical staff" The respected DA matead of consul Nominal Rell perversely eroceeded with Rule-t ae x y tne Arge> 7 ey RANE register, r. The nominal roll EE r provided to appellant for sheet on the basis of afte was not consulted by the Ds perusal. BENC That Sir, actually | was working as PA MPCM counter from 22 Q22017 to UP.GS2017 and from 20.05.2017 to 17.06.2017 and not as SRRA. | was working as treasurer rand PA MPCM counter from 20.06.2017 to 14.00.201" and nat ag SBPA exclusively Sri Gola Behera, regular SSPA rransferred as LSG SPM Gopinath Patna NDT SQ and | was givers order ta Took after rhe workeof SBPA in addition to my original duty Le BA MPCM counters and treasurer for the said period from 20.06.2017 te 14.08.2017, When the regis er was wot maintained by the regular SBPA from O01. O48 20) then how if can be prepared within U0) cays Le fromm Sy OR. FOL? to BOA SOOTY.
That Sir, Sri Gola Behera was permanent a regular SBPA of KS. Nagar SO from the year clo to S017 wh i hich can be disclosed from Nominal Rel. But " my atte misfortune the squad doing CLI om behalf PMO, Berhampur (Om) wrongly noted my name as 3b P a ne of Gale Behera im Chi report tand the DA nein: ' :
charge-sheet againsl me ms ing HE SE cay pe-poat : and d allowed Go ia Behers to go se letting him off with "Pensare'. Hence 3 4 fact, ' 'did aot work as SEPA Kos. Nagar (Grade-1) SO an the given dates, K.S. Nagar SO Is a Grade-1 PO having one SPM (Gr-T)} and 3 ot her assistants. 1E can not ber rule da aut d sat the Nominal roll of the PO has been ees (By UI) ib is to state tha nN the prov ision af Rude- F501) 09 few Para: Ve ', Viana vi Hof That as preseribed in Rule-F5(0} TM if} of abowe said Volume the Counter /ledger Assistant of HO and SPM af SQ should do the task of maintaining the register, Tt is cle: arly prescribed in para-lV af the given rule tha each BPM is required to prepare the list In duplicate In the prescribed proforma showing each and every accounts standing at BO and forward a copy to HO/SO duly signed, Therefore, accordance with provision af Para-VI of the given rule the epM will check the list and prepare the register as per Para- V of the said Rule-75(1). Even though the appellant did not work as SBPA in K.S. Nagar 50 on the given dates the SPM's duty is to maintain the register as per rule. further the register was not maintained prior to posting of the ap in K.S.Nagar $0. itis not disclosed in charge-sheet whether the REM Sialia BO S submitted the list under Rule-75(1) CV} of POSB manual Voli, 2012. Further, in case the register was not maintained by the SPM, Ks. Nagar and balances of all accounts were not verified then how the respected DA submitted the completion report by 30.09.2017 as required under Para-Vil of the above said rule.
In this context it is farther te imyite an reference to question No 16(8)} of BO inspection questionnaire corrected upto the year 2006 which st pulates, "Check whether the BPM has eoflected the SB pass books not presen red far transaction by 30th june of the year and sent the satne to the HO with a ist in duplicate by 15th July for entry of Interest. If not done direct the GPM to do so gmmediately". Ht is the duty af the inspecting officer like Ip /ASP/ Divisional Sundt. To instruct the GDSBPM, Sialla BO to sent all SE Passbooks to HO/SO as the case may be for interest posting during their inspections/ visits.
(if} In respect to point af para-6 A} Ci) it is to state that the register which was required to be maintained in 2017 could avoided the SE fraud as alleged committed by BEM Sialia BO during the year 2016. Thus the allegation on this score is unfounded, {iv} That even chough the appellant did not wark as SBPA an given dates and ig quite innocent it is worthwhile to mvite an inference to Rule-3{ bj af Appendix-4 of P&T RHE | Le OY Ra EE A ES OA Na. SAY ONSo4 20a E Vol-d in conjunction with Rule-3{b} of Appendix -1 of GPR- 2017 which stipulates "In particular if the loss has occurred through fraud every endeavour should be made to recover the whole amount lost from the guilty persons and if laxity ef supervising officer at fault may properly be penalised either directly by requiring him to make good In money a sufficient propartion of the loss or indirectly by reduction ar stoppage of his increments of pay." In this case on litendra Swain was Grade-1 Postmaster (Supervisor) and Sri Gola Behera was SEPA A, K.S.Nagear SO from the year 2015 to 2017. Instead of pe inishing them, an innocent {ike me has been wrongly punished.
& The AA in his order dated 23.04.2021 (4/9), Insofar as the points referred above, has dealt into and replied as under:
5 1 have gone thro uge the memo of charge, defence representation, appeal of Smt t Panigrahi and other connected records of the case carefully and applied my mind dispassionately. |
(i) The appellant was given access of the related and avaliable documents. The documents demanded by the appellant in her request for perusal are not the sole documents. The lapses brought in the charge sheet against the appellant have been ascertained From some other vital documents Hke dally accounts of SiaHa BO for the concerned dates on the basis of which fraud cormmitted has been established, The working of the appellant as SBPA at Kabisuryanagar SO has been established from Postmaster's Order Book maintained at Rabisurya nagar SQ.
fil] The facts stated in the charges are definite and specific as the account numbers from which the offender could be able te misappropriate money and for that as to haw the appellant was responsible for %.
a Vy BA Ra. LEQ Lod SN ret neglecting in duty by not following the procedure properly have been clearly mentioned in the charge sheet, Ui} The Article-[ of charge sheet is based en the SB Acewunt No. 7697071225 stands in the name of Sri Trilochan Nahak and Article-H of the charge sheet is based on the SB Account No. 7697069747 stands in the name of Sri Kamal Lochan Dash. Thus no repetition is there in between Article-L and Article-IL.
(iv) After going through all related office records and defence representation of the appellant horengn the Disciplinary Autharity has decided the c (vj No where in the charge sheet it has been reported that the Attendance register only is absolute to come to conclusion, that the appellant was working as SBPA of Kabisuryanagar SQ.
{vi} As per Rule-75 (1) GIO both the counter PA and the SPM of Kabisuryanagar SOQ are responsible for non-maintenance of the required register. The appellant had worked as SBPA, Kabisuryanagar SO during that period and hence she was | Responsible for non-maintenance of the {vii} Had the register maintained In the year 2017 and the Hst of passbooks not received for Interest posting sent to the IP, Aska (East) sub-division for verificat ion of balance by the crucial dated 20.07.2017 the fraudulent deposit transactions on 25.11.2016 and {LALZOIS could have been detected sarler and further fraudulent transactions frem the said accounts could have been averted, jon 3 (vill) Sri itendra Swain the then Postmaster Grade-1, Kabisurvanagar SO and Sri Gola Behera the then is DA NG SS US2od AST SBPA, Kabisuryanagar SQ have already been proceeded under Rule-16 separately in Sialla BO fraudl case basing on the gravity of the lapse committed by them. Moreover the lapses of others will not reduce the responsibility of the appellant.
65 | have carefully gune through the Memo of charge, Defence representation submitted by Smt Prangya Paramita Panigrahi and other connected documents in the case. The lapses committed by the appellant provided scope fo the principal offender Sri Madhab Naik te commit a series of fraud from a number of varicus SB accounts to the tune of lakhs of rupees and the department sustained such a heavy lass on this aspect. Had the charged official performed the task as elaborated In the aforesaid articles of charges properly, the fraud committed by the principal offender could have been detected earlier and the subsequent fraud averted.
ae ow therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under S TOCA) Rules, 1965 and in accordance with Rule-24 of the od Rules and being empowered to exercise the statutory powers of the Director Postal Services, Berhampur Region vide Circle Office, Bhubaneswar Memo No. ST/2-35(2) / 2020 dated 16.10.2020 and after due consideration of the grounds oF appeal dated T4.00..2021 preferred by Smt Frangya
-aramita Panigrahi, PA, Aska HO, 1, Aditva Kumar Nayak, [rector Postal Services CHO} Circle Office, Bhubaneswar order that the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority is commensurate with the grave offence committed by the appellant for which the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority is upheld to meet the both ends of justice."
8, The applicantin her application dated 11.11.2020 and 19.11.2020 has sought same documents to substantiate that she was not spec ifleally a Ri UA Ne. SOE sieht se EN entrusted to duties, which are to be discharged in the capacity af PA, but according to the applicant, although the documents are relevant and pivetal to the matter, the same were not supplied to her. The respondents have filed photocopies of certain documents to establish that the applicant was assigned the work of SB Counter and sub account branch or Q3.10,2016 of the Kabisuryanagar SO. But, on going through the said record, this Tribunal do not satisfy te come to the definite conclusion that the applicant bad ever been specifically ordered to discharge the duties of the PA as required under Rule 75 (1) (1) and 75 (1) Gil} of POSB Mannal Val-l.
10. Itmay be relevant te record that failure to discharge the duties In an orderly manner provided in the rules {s certainly an act unbecoming on the part of a government servant but itis to be established that such a duty was entrusted but the government servant failed to discharge the sang, ii. [bis not out af place fo mention that one cannot be punished on conjecture, presumption or surmises. Similarly, when the respondents' allegation is that the applicant was posted as a PA In the particular place but he failed to discharge the duties meant to be discharged by the PA and the same was dented by the applicant by placing materials that she Q OA No, SON GO aa fara t ord € had never been posted as a PA but as a Treasurer, chvious onus les on the respondents department to establish by producing valid documents in support of their stand that the applicant had been posted as a PA and not as Treasurer. Further, laws is well settled that however suspicion erave may be, that cannot be proved Ina domestic Inquiry in the case of HC. Goel Vs. UOL ATR 1964 SC 364. This principle has subsequently been reiterated in very many cases by the Hon'ble Apex Court also.
ia
12. The legal maxim sublato fundament cadit opus is a well recognized principle that if the foundation is removed, the superstructure will collapse. It Is also well settled proposition that if| initial action is mot in consonance with law, subsequent proceedings would not sanctify the same. Further, lustice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly seem to be done is the sine qua non as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mineral Development Limited v State of Bihar and Another, ATR 1960 SC 463.
13. Since the points raised by the applicant discussed above gces [6 the root of the matter but the DA and the AA dealt with the same im a very casual and slipshod manner can safely be said that the orders are unreasoned one, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the ed DNA Na. 268 fOR2 Bo4y eye entire matter needs fresh consideration after giving & fue opportunity fo the applicant in accordance with law. Hence, the this Tribunal do not find any justifiability to quash the charge memo dated O211/2020 fA/2) but find sufficient farce for quashing the order of the DA dated 1E.0L. 2021 (A/G) and AA dated 23.04.2021 (A/9) for the ends of justice and, accordingly, both the orders ate hereby quashed and the matter remitted back to the DA to examine on the specific point discussed abave after giving due apportunity to the applicant in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the applicant in a well reasoned and speaking order within a period of six days from the date of recerpt ofa copy of this order, In view of the quashing of the orders of the DA and AA, recovery, if any, shall be only after the final outcome of the reconsideration, as directe above.
14. In the result, the OA stands allowed to the extent stated above leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) MEMBER (ADMN,)