Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Sanatan Mallick vs Posts on 12 May, 2026
1 O.A.No. 260/00602 of 2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00602 of 2021
Reserved on 07.05.2026 Pronounced on 12.05.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Sanatan Mallick, aged about 58 Years, S/O-
Late Harihar Mallick, At/Po/PS-Astaranga
Dist- Puri, Pin-752109, presently working as
SPM, B S Nagar SO, At/PO/Dist-Puri, Odisha-
752102.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through It's
Secretary to Govt. of India, Dak Bhawan, New
Delhi-110001.
2. The DPS (HQ), O/O the CPMG, Odisha Circle,
At/Po-Bhubaneswar GPO-751001, Dist-
Khurda. (Odisha)
3. The SSPOs, Puri Division, At/PO/Dist-Puri-
752102. (Odisha).
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. T.Rath, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. B.R.Swain, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2026.05.12
10:31:33 +05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00602 of 2021
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
Upon giving due consideration to the arguments advanced by the respective parties and perusal of records, a deeper concern now beckons our attention in this case under the sharp lens of natural justice since it is the case of the applicant that he was imposed with the punishment of recovery for alleged contributory negligence, for the misappropriation committed by another employee, in culmination of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 in violation of the prescribed procedure/rules, without evidence and in gross violation of cardinal principle of natural justice. Besides other, he hammered on the ground that since the allegation made against the applicant was complicated question of fact and law, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondents would not have imposed the punishment without holing due inquiry, giving him opportunity, in the manner inquiry is held against an employee under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and, that, the entire allegation in the charge sheet is that the applicant failed to RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.12 10:31:33 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/00602 of 2021 supervise the Register for the Accounts maintained in the BO whereas when he sought the copy of such Register, which is alleged not supervised by the applicant, the respondents denied him on the ground that there is no such provision for inspection or supply of documents in Rule 16 proceedings, which is bad in law since the applicant became handicapped and highly prejudiced to defend his case.
2. On the other hand, the above stand has been opposed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents in stating that there is no provision under the rules for supply of documents or holding the inquiry in the manner provided to follow in respect of Rule 14 proceedings. It is also stated that that the applicant also did not pray for the same. For the fault of the applicant, the department suffered financial loss and, to make good the part of loss, was rightly ordered to be recovered from the applicant after giving him due opportunity in Rule 16 proceedings initiated against him. Applicant also preferred appeal and the Appellate Authroity after considering the matter in its entirety and upon due consideration of mind rejected the same in a well reasoned and RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.12 10:31:33 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00602 of 2021 speaking order. Ld. Counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court to substantiate that when punishment is imposed in accordance with rules, after giving due opportunity, there is no scope for the Bench to interfere on the same and, that, the Bench being not the Appellate Authority over the decision of the competent authority of the department, cannot reassess the evidence or sit over the order of the authority concerned. Accordingly, respondents prayed for dismissal of this OA.
3. Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides as under:
"16.Procedure for imposing minor penalties (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (5) of rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (iv) of rule 11 shall be made except after-
(a) informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal;
(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (24) of rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary;
(c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.12 10:31:33 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00602 of 2021 the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause
(b) into consideration;
(d) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary. The Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the advice of the Commission to the Government servant, who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission on the advice of the Commission, to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days; and
(e) recording a finding on each imputation or misconduct or misbehavior.
(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule, to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (24) of Rule 14, before making any order imposing on the Government servant any such penalty.
(2) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include-
(i) a copy of the intimation to the Government servant of the proposal to take action against him;
(ii) a copy of the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him;
(iii) his representation, if any;
(iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry;
(v) the advice of the Commission, if any; RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.12 10:31:33 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00602 of 2021
(vi) representation, if any, of the Government servant on the advice of the Commission;
(vii) the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehavior; and (viii) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor." Below the Rules, the OM of DoP&T No. 11012/18/85- Estt.(A) dated 28.10.1985 is inbuilt inter alia stating as under:
"2. The above suggestion has been given a detailed consideration. Rule 16 (1-A) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, provides for the holding of an inquiry even when a minor penalty is to be imposed in the circumstances indicated therein. In other cases, where a minor penalty is to be imposed, Rule 16 (1) ibid leaves it to the discretion of Disciplinary Authority to decide whether an inquiry should be held or not. The implication of this rule is that, on receipt of representation of Government servant concerned on the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour communicated to him, the Disciplinary Authority should apply its mind to all facts and circumstances and the reasons urged in the representation for holding a detailed inquiry and form an opinion whether an inquiry is necessary or not. In a case where a delinquent Government servant has asked for inspection of certain documents and cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses, the Disciplinary Authority should naturally apply its mind more closely to the request and should not reject the request solely on the ground that an inquiry is not mandatory. If the records indicate that, notwithstanding the points urged by the Government servant, the Disciplinary Authority could, after due consideration, come to the conclusion that an inquiry is not necessary, it should say so in writing indicating is reasons, instead of rejecting the request for holding inquiry summarily without any indication that it has applied its mind to the request, as such an action could be construed as denial of natural justice."
RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.12 10:31:33 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00602 of 2021 Below which, the relevant portion of Rule 77 of P&T Manual Vol. III is also quoted as under:
"Inspection of documents may be permitted. Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, does not make it incumbent on the part of the Disciplinary Authority that it should give the accused official an opportunity to inspect the relevant records, provided no formal enquiry is considered necessary by the Disciplinary Authority. If, however, an accused officer in such a case makes a request for permitting him to inspect the relevant records to enable him to submit his defence, the Disciplinary Authority may grant the necessary permission."
4. Basically, the applicant was chargesheeted on 13.05.2021 alleging that under Rule 75 of POSB Manual Vol.I (2012 edition) read with provision of Rule 50(iii) of CBS Manual 2018, applicant was required to supervise the Register of Accounts maintained by his PA standing open at Chitreswari BO for checking and receipt of passbooks at his office etc. and, not following the above provision, the applicant not only contributed to the quantum of loss misappropriated by the GDS BPM, Chitreswari BO during 2017-18 to the Department but also acted in a manner unbecoming on a part of a Govt. servant. In the counter, it has not been denied that no such RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.12 10:31:33 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00602 of 2021 register was maintained by the predecessor of the applicant and, it is stated that the applicant in his capacity as Sub Postmaster and being custodian of public exchequer was expected to be vigilant enough to suspect the reason for concurrent transaction made by the concerned GDS BPM. Since the applicant was a subsidiary offender in the fraud case, major penalty proceedings was not initiated against him. The applicant submitted application on 29.05.2021 stating inter alia that since the matter relates to 2017-18, he does not recollect the fact from his memory and, therefore, he may be supplied copies of the documents such as Inspection Reports, Register of Account maintained at Chitreswari BO etc. to enable him to submit effective reply to the charge sheet. In letter dated 24.06.2021, the SSPO, Puri Division, supplied him some documents but not the copy of the Register of Account maintained at Chitreswari BO stating that the same is not permissible under rules. However, the applicant submitted his defence denying the allegation in toto. The DA vide order dated 15.09.2021 imposed the punishment of recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- for his negligence in RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.12 10:31:33 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00602 of 2021 duty resulting committing of fraud and misappropriation of depositors amount by the GDS BPM to make good the part of the loss but not gross negligence accompanied by any evil motive of the applicant. We find the order of the DA is completely silent as to why he did not chose to make a detailed inquiry even if not asked for by the applicant as provided under the rules, quoted above. We are conscious that under the rules, it is the discretion of the DA to go ahead with the detailed inquiry or not yet we cannot close our eyes to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of O.K.Bhardwaj Vs. UOI & Ors., 2002 SCC(L&S) 188, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dealing with a matter of Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, was pleased to hold as under:
"Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with"
5. In the case of Uday Shankar Das Vs. UOI in OA 436/2001, who was imposed with the minor penalty without inquiry, by RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.12 10:31:33 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/00602 of 2021 applying the decision of Hon'ble Apex in the case of O.K.Bhardwaj (supra) this Bench quashed the order of punishment in the said case, which was also upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.
6. In the instant case, we also find that the charge is factual and has been denied by the applicant, therefore, by following the mandate enshrined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of O.K.Bharadwaj (supra) and by this Bench in the case of Uday Shankar Das (supra) upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, especially in absence of giving any reason in the order of punishment dated 15.09.2021 as to why the DA did not think to go ahead with the inquiry, the impugned order makes itself unsustainable in the eyes of law. Since, the order is held unsustainable, the order of the AA falls to ground. Accordingly, the orders of DA and AA are hereby quashed. In ordinary parlance, we would have remitted the matter for making inquiry but taking into consideration the fact that the charge relates to 2017-18 and the matter is still going on till date, we refrain from RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.12 10:31:33 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/00602 of 2021 ordering so. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to refund the amount, if any, already recovered from the applicant within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. In the result, this OA stands allowed to the extent stated above. Pending, MA, if any, stands disposed of. Costs made easy.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.05.12
10:31:33 +05'30'