Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Manjula S vs Deptt Of Posts on 16 October, 2025
1
OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00117/2024
ORDER RESERVED ON: 22.09.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 16.10.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, ..MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, ..MEMBER(A)
Smt. Manjula S
W/o Manjunatha,
Aged about 36 years,
Ex. GDS BPM/DP
Kalari B.O.,
A/w Magadi SO
Residing at:
Someshwara Extension,
Magadi Town - 562 120. ...
Applicant
(By Advocate Shri P. Kamalesan)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Post,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
S SARALADEVI
S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE
2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30'
2
OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
2. Chief Post Master General,
Karnataka Circle,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
3. Post Master General,
HQ Region,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
4. Supt. Of Post Offices,
Channapatna Division,
Channapatna - 562 160.
5. Sri. B.R. Madhu Sudhana,
Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (I.O),
Bengaluru South Sub Division-III
Bengaluru - 560 070.
...Respondents
(By Shri S. Prakash Shetty, Senior Panel Counsel Counsel for
Respondents No. 1 to 4, Respondent No.5 - ex-parte)
ORDER
PER: SHRI SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A)
1. Through this OA, the applicant has sought for the following reliefs:-
"(i) Quash the I.O. report vide file No.ASP/BG South III/10/01/2020-21 dated 20.05.2022 - Annexure-A7 issued by Respondent No.5.
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 3 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
(ii) Quash the Supt. Of Post Offices, Channapatna Division, Channapatna-562 160 proceedings vide Letter No.F/4-3/Disc/18-19 dated 06.09.2022 - Annexure-A10 issued by Respondent No.4.
(iii) Quash office of the Post Master General, HQ Revision, Bengaluru-560 001 letter No.BGR/VIG/10-3/MS/2022 dated 14.03.2023 - Annexure-A12 issued by Respondent No.3.
(iv) Quash the Office of the Chief Post General, Karnataka Circle Bengaluru-560 001 Letter No.VIG/15-05/2023 dated 11.12.2023 - Annexure-A14 issued by Respondent No.2.
(v) Consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits.
(vi) Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows:
While the applicant was working as GDS BPM/DP at Kalari BO A/c with Magadi SO at Channapatna Postal Division, the Post Master, Magadi SO sent a report to ASP Channapatna vide Letter No.Misc/Dlgs/Dt: 12.02.2019, regarding some suspicious transaction at Kalari BO. Based S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 4 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE on the same, the applicant was kept on 'Put Off Duty', with effect from 28.02.2019, vide Order No.F/4-3/18-19 of Supt.
Of Post Offices, Channapatna Division. The applicant submitted representations on 03.02.2020, 12.03.2020, 20.07.2020, 14.09.2020, requesting to revoke the 'Put Off Duty' and for early completion of inquiry. The Supt. of Post Offices, Channapatna Division, vide letter No. F/4-
3/Disc/18-19 dated 30.09.2020, issued Memorandum of Charges under Rule 10(B) (Major Penalties) of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct & Engagement ) Rules, 2020. The Disciplinary Authority also appointed an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer to conduct inquiry. The Presenting Officer submitted his report on 17.03.2022 vide letter No.01/ASP HO/PO/Dlgs. and a copy was furnished to the applicant. The applicant submitted her defense brief on 05.04.2022 vide letter No.02/DA/Dlgs. The I.O. submitted his report on 20.05.2022, to the Disciplinary Authority, which was also furnished to her. The applicant submitted her reply on I.O. report on 15.06.2022. The Supt. of Post Offices, vide Letter No. F/4-3/18-19 dated 17/20.06.2022 directed the applicant to credit Rs.64,300-00, which was the defrauded S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 5 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE amount. Vide Referene No. F/4-3/18-19 dated 06.09.2020, he also issued proceedings Dismissing the applicant from Engagement. The applicant submitted an Appeal to the Post Master General, HQ Region, Bengaluru on 29.10.2022. The appeal was rejected but penalty of "Dismissal" was modified to "Removal" by Appellate Authority vide Letter No.BGR/VIG/10-3/MS/2022 dated 14.03.2023. The applicant submitted a Revision Petition to Chief Post Master General Karnataka Circle, Bengaluru on 16.08.2023. The Revisionary Authority rejected the Revision Petition, vide Letter No. VIG/15-05/2023 dated: 11.12.2023. Hence, the applicant has approached the Tribunal for relief through this OA.
3. According to learned Counsel for applicant, the respondents failed to adhere to the instructions regarding disciplinary proceedings issued by DG Posts vide Letter No.294/90-(E)-1 Trg dated: 26.07.1990, wherein it has laid down time schedule for finalizing disciplinary proceedings. The learned Counsel for applicant submits that the prime prosecution witness (1) PW.1- Smt. Bhadramma - PW.2- S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 6 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Smt. Geetha, PW4- Venkatalakshmamma, PW5- Smt. Parvathamma, PW.6- Lepaksha, PW.7- Smt. Madadevamma, PW.9- Smt. Shivarajamma, PW.10- Ravi, PW.11- Smt. Ambika, PW.12- Basaraju were not produced in the inquiry and were dropped by prosecution, which resulted in denial of cross-examination by the applicant during the disciplinary proceedings. Their statements, which were recorded in preliminary inquiry were taken on record and this evidence was accepted by I.O., which is against the principles of natural justice. The duration of 'Put-Off-Duty', the period of inquiry and completion of disciplinary proceedings are in violation of the time schedule prescribed by D.G. Post and relevant paras of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, are as follows:
"3. It is also necessary that the disciplinary authority makes every effort to finalize the disciplinary proceedings and pass final orders so that an EDA does not remain on put-off duty for a period exceeding 45 days and not 120 days as ordered previously. The Divisional Superintendent should draw up a time-table for ensuring finalization of disciplinary cases within this period. If, due to unavoidable reasons, it is not possible to finalize a case within this period, the matter should be reported immediately to the S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 7 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE next superior authority giving full justification why the EDA cannot be taken back to duty pending finalization of the case. The superior authority should on receipt of the report immediately review the case and consider-
(i) whether there is justification to continue the EDA concerned off duty for a further period; and
(ii) what steps should be taken by the disciplinary authority to eliminate all avoidable delay in finalizing the case.
The superior authority will then make an order accordingly."
4. The learned Counsel for applicant reiterates that the prosecution failed to produce all prime witnesses in the inquiry for cross-examination and the I.O. heavily relied on the statements recorded in the preliminary inquiry, which were earlier recorded at the back of the applicant. According to him, such statements cannot be used in regular inquiry, as reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nirmala J. Jhala vs. State of Gujarat & Anr in Civil Appeal No.2668 of 2005 which was decided on 18.03.2013 and cited the following paras of the aforesaid judgment cited are quoted as follows:-
"6. LEGAL ISSUES:
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 8 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE I. Standard of proof in a Departmental Enquiry which is Quasi Criminal/Quasi Judicial in nature : A. In M. V. Bijlani v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2006 SC 3475, this Court held :
" ... Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi- criminal in nature, there should be some evidences to prove the charge.
Although the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial, i.e., beyond all reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures."
D. In Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr, AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 852 , it was held that the departmental proceeding being a quasi judicial one, the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. The Court exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider as to whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded there from. ................................... ......................................................... S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 9 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
20. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Amlendu Ghosh v. District Traffic Superintendent, North-Eastern Railway, Katiyar, AIR 1960 SC 992, held that the purpose of holding a preliminary inquiry in respect of a particular alleged misconduct is only for the purpose of finding a particular fact and prima facie, to know as to whether the alleged misconduct has been committed and on the basis of the findings recorded in preliminary inquiry, no order of punishment can be passed. It may be used only to take a view as to whether a regular disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent is required to be held."
5. The learned Counsel for applicant further avers that the respondents failed to take cognizance of the unblemished service record of applicant from 2008 to 2018 and based on a solitary complaint, disciplinary proceedings were conducted and penalty of dismissal from engagement, was imposed which was disproportionate to the offence as alleged. The Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisionary Authority, failed to take cognizance of the issues raised by the applicant, and were wrongly influenced by the I.O. report, which held that all charges were proved beyond doubt. In this regard, he invited our attention to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.S.Bindra v. S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 10 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Union of India & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 3058, in which, it was held:
"While evaluating the materials the authority should not altogether ignore the reputation in which the officer was held till recently. The maxim "Nemo Firut Repente Turpissimus" (no one becomes dishonest all on a sudden) is not unexceptional but still it is salutary guideline to judge human conduct, particularly in the field of Administrative Law. The authorities should not keep the eyes totally closed towards the overall estimation in which the delinquent officer was held in the recent past by those who were supervising him earlier. To dunk an officer into the puddle of "doubtful integrity" it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable man on the given material._ _ _ _"
6. The respondents have filed their reply statement. The Counsel for the respondents submitted that while the applicant was working as GDSBPM, Kalari Branch Post Office, a report was received vide letter No. Misc/dlgs dated 12.02.2019 regarding suspicious withdrawal of Rs.5000/- in respect of Savings Bank account No. 0806126096 on 09.01.2019 held by one Smt. Bhadramma at Kalari Branch S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 11 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Post Office, as there was no entry of withdrawal in the passbook. Based on this report, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Channapatna Postal Sub Division conducted investigation which revealed that the applicant had allowed the said withdrawal of Rs.5000/- in respect of Savings Bank account No. 0806126096 on 09.01.2019 without obtaining the signature i.e., Left Hand Thumb Impression (LTM) in case of the actual depositor on the withdrawal voucher (SB-7) and without showing the amount of withdrawal in the passbook and also without paying the withdrawal amount to the actual account holder, thereby violating the procedure outlined in Rule 134 and 135 of Rules of Branch Offices. The applicant credited the alleged fraudulently withdrawn amount of Rs.5000/- to Government account by way of crediting the said amount to "Unclassified Receipts" on 22.02.2019, (Annexure-R6), after detection of this irregularity. The applicant was placed under 'Put Off Duty' from 02.03.2019 by Respondent No.4 vide put off duty memo No. F/4-3/18-19 dated 28.02.2019 in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 12 (1) (a) of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011. S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 12 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE The applicant was later proceeded against under Rule 10B (Major Penalties) of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020 by Respondent No.4 vide Memo No. F/4-3/Disc/18-19 dated 30.09.2020 on charges of alleged fraudulent withdrawals made by the applicant from the savings accounts of account holders and for violating the provisions of Rule 134 and 135 of Rules of Branch Offices. The applicant was also directed to submit a written statement of her defence within 10 days of receipt of the memorandum and also to state whether she desired to be heard in person. The applicant submitted her written statement of defence for the articles of charges framed against her to Respondent No.4, vide her representation dated 11.10.2020 denying all the articles of charges.
7. The learned Counsel for respondents submits that in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 10(B) of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020, Respondent No.4 & Disciplinary Authority appointed Respondent No.5 as Inquiring Authority vide Memo no. F/4-3/Disc/18-19 S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 13 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE dated 16.11.2020 and Presenting Officer vide Memo no.F/4-3/Disc/18-19 dated 16.11.2020.
8. He further states that inquiry was commenced and preliminary sitting was held on 21.01.2021, in which the Articles of Charges as detailed in the Annexure-I to Annexure-VI of the memorandum of charges (Annexure- R10 refers) issued by Respondent No.4 was read over to the applicant in detail by the Inquiring Officer (Respondent No.5) and explained in regional language (Kannada). The applicant during the preliminary hearing held on 21.01.2021 denied all the six articles of charges and submitted a representation to this effect to the Respondent No.5, vide her letter dated 21.01.2021. The applicant during the course of preliminary inquiry submitted her request to Respondent No.5 to consider the nomination of Sri. P V Damodar, Retired Assistant Director to act as her Defence Assistant, which was accepted by Respondent No.5. During the course of regular sittings, the prosecution documents listed in Annexure-III of Memorandum of charges (Annexure- S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 14 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE R10 refers) were introduced by the Presenting Officer and given for examination to the applicant and taken on record on 10.02.2021. The applicant was also given an opportunity during the inquiry sitting dated 23.02.2021 to furnish the list of additional documents and witnesses, if any, to defend the case on her behalf by indicating their relevance. Accordingly, the applicant submitted the list seeking defence documents and the same were furnished by Respondent No.5 from the Disciplinary Authority depending on their availability and considering their relevance. The defence documents were marked during the regular sitting held on 20.07.2021. Thereafter, continuous sittings were held in accordance with the extant rules applicable and the prosecution witnesses were examined. After examination of prosecution witnesses, the applicant was called for general questioning by Respondent No.5. The applicant opted for general questioning by the Respondent No.5 on 04.03.2022 and the inquiry was concluded at this stage. S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 15 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
9. Highlighting that the principles of natural justice and the laid down procedures were scrupulously followed, the learned Counsel for the respondents states that the Presenting Officer submitted the Presenting Officer (PO) brief vide letter No.01/ASP HQ/PO/Digs dated 17.03.2022, concluding all the six articles of charges as 'proved'. Respondent No.5 forwarded the PO brief to the applicant on 23.02.2022 directing the applicant to submit her defence brief within 10 days. The applicant submitted her defence brief vide her representation dated 05.04.2022 requesting Respondent No.5 to hold all the articles of charges against her as 'not proved'. Based on the oral and documentary evidences adduced during the inquiry and also taking into view the analysis and assessment of the evidences, as discussed by Respondent No.5 in detail in his IO report, Respondent No.5 in the capacity of Inquiring Officer concluded that the articles of charges framed against the applicant were proved beyond doubt vide Report No. ASP/BG South- III/IO/01/2020-21 dated 17.05.2022. The findings of Respondent No.5 was agreed by Respondent No.4 i.e., S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 16 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Disciplinary Authority and a copy of IO report was forwarded to the applicant for submitting her representation, vide letter No.F/4-3/Disc/18-19 dated 23.05.2022. The applicant in response to Annexure-R21, submitted her defence brief vide her representation dated 15.06.2022 stating that she did not agree with the findings of the IA and requested the Disciplinary Authority & Respondent No.4 to consider her case sympathetically on humanitarian grounds and take a lenient view. After careful consideration of the IO report dated 17.05.2022, the representation of the applicant dated 15.06.2022 on IO report and other connected records, Respondent No.4 in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority passed order vide Memo no. F/4-3/Disc/18-19 dated 06.09.2022 declaring Smt. Manjula S, GDSBPM/DP (POD), Kalari BO a/w Magadi SO- 562120 be dismissed from engagement, which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future engagement. The applicant, thereafter, preferred an appeal dated 29.10.2022 to the Appellate Authority, Respondent No.3 against the order passed by Respondent No.4. S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 17 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
10. Respondent No.3 in exercise of statutory powers vested under Rule 18 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020 reduced the penalty of "Dismissal from Engagement" imposed by the Disciplinary Authority & Respondent No.4 vide proceedings No.F/4-3/Disc/18-19 dated 06.09.2022 (Annexure-R23) to "Removal from Engagement" vide Memo No.BGR/Vig/10-3/MS/2022 dated 14.03.2023.
11. Defending the delay in completion and finalization of disciplinary proceedings, the learned Counsel for respondents stated that the respondents concerned could not adhere to the timelines prescribed, due to the first wave of COVID-19, which ran from March-2020 to January-2021(approx) and again the second wave of COVID-19 which continued from March-2021 to May-2021 (approx). Non-attendance of witnesses even after issuance of multiple notices and untimely death of prosecution witness, Smt. Bhadramma, further delayed completion of disciplinary proceedings. S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 18 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE However, there was no intentional or undue delay in finalizing the case.
12. He further pointed out that the inquiry records/evidences consisted not only of the statements of the depositors of SB accounts, but also documentary evidence in the form of SB withdrawal vouchers, passbooks, ledger copies and Branch Post Office records and the entries available therein which fully substantiated the charge. Further, the applicant had not brought out anything cogent during the inquiry to dispute the veracity of vital prosecution documents stated above.
13. The learned Counsel for respondents further averred that Respondent No.4, Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.2 in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisionary Authority respectively also independently and carefully examined the contentions made by the applicant in her representations, took cognizance of facts on records, relied on the rule position and thereafter passed appropriate orders, keeping in view the principles of S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 19 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE natural justice and equity. Hence, the contention of the applicant is not tenable and the OA should be quashed.
14. We have given thoughtful consideration to the averments and arguments of the learned Counsel for the applicant and the respondents. We have also carefully gone through all the documents and records including the judgments of the Superior Court, relevant sections and clauses of the departmental rules etc, which were brought on record by the respective Counsels.
15. Let us first examined the Articles of charge are as under:
"STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SMT.MANJULA S GDSBPM/DP (POD), KALARI BO A/W MAGADI S.O. UNDER CHANNAPATNA DIVISION.
ARTICLE -I That the said Smt. Manjula S, while functioning as GDSBPM/DP, Kalari BO a/w Magadi S.O. during the period from 05.09.2008 to 01.03.2019 had shown a withdrawal amount of Rs. 5000/- on 09-01-2019 in r/o SB account no. 0806126096 held by Smt. Bhadramma and accounted for in BO accounts without taking the LTM from the actual account holder in the SB-7 voucher, without showing the amount of withdrawal in the pass book and also without paying the amount of withdrawal to the account holder and thus failed S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 20 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE to follow the procedure outlined in Rule 134 and 135 of Rules of Branch Offices, 6th Edition.
Therefore, it is alleged that, Smt. Manjula S, while functioning as GDSBPM/DP, Kalari BO a/w Magadi S.O. has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty contravening the provisions of Rule 21 (i) & (ii) of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020.
ARTICLE -II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, Smt. Manjula S had shown a withdrawal amount of Rs. 2000/- on 28-12-2018 in r/o SB account no. 0806171528 held by Smt. Parvathamma and accounted for in BO accounts without taking the signature from the actual account holder in the SB-7 voucher and without paying the amount of withdrawal to the account holder and thus failed to follow the procedure outlined in Rule 134 and 135 of Rules of Branch Offices, 6th Edition.
Therefore, it is alleged that, Smt. Manjula S, while functioning as GDSBPM/DP, Kalari BO a/w Magadi S.O. has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty contravening the provisions of Rule 21 (i) & (ii) of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020.
ARTICLE-III That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, Smt. Manjula S had shown a withdrawal amount of Rs. 5000/- on 11-09-2018 in r/o SB account no. 3278331906 held by Smt. Mahadevamma and accounted for in BO accounts without taking the signature from the actual account holder in the SB-7 voucher and without paying the S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 21 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE amount of withdrawal to the account holder and thus failed to follow the procedure outlined in Rule 134 and 135 of Rules of Branch Offices 6th Edition.
Therefore, it is alleged that, Smt. Manjula S, while functioning as ODSBPM/DP, Kalari BO a/w Magadi S.O. has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty contravening the provisions of Rule 21 (i) & (ii) of Department of Posts, Grarnin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020.
ARTICLE-IV That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, Smt. Manjula S, had shown a withdrawal amount of Rs. 20000/- on 29-10-2018 in r/o SB account no. 0806197225 held by Smt. Shivarajamma and accounted for in BO accounts without taking the signature from the actual account holder in the SB-7 voucher and without paying the amount of withdrawal to the account holder and thus failed to follow the procedure outlined in Rule 134 and 135 of Rules of Branch Offices, 6th Edition.
Therefore, it is alleged that, Smt. Manjula S, while functioning as GDSBPM/DP, Kalari BO a/w Magadi S.O. has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty contravening the provisions of Rule 21 (i) & (ii) of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020.
ARTICLE-V That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, Smt. Manjula S, had shown a withdrawal amount of Rs. 2800/-on 10-10-2018 in r/o SB account no. 3241036838 held by Smt. Ambika R and accounted for in BO accounts without taking the signature S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 22 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE from the actual account holder in the SB-7 voucher and without paying the amount of withdrawal to the account holder and thus failed to follow the procedure outlined in Rule 134 and 135 of Rules of Branch Offices, 6th Edition.
Therefore, it is alleged that, Smt. Manjula S, while functioning as GDSBPM/DP, Kalari BO a/w Magadi S.O. has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty contravening the provisions of Rule 21 (i) & (ii) of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020.
ARTICLE-VI That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, Smt. Manjula S, had shown a withdrawal amounts detailed below in r/o SB account no. 0806144904 held by Sri. Basavaraju and accounted for in BO accounts without taking the signature from the actual account holder in the SB-7 vouchers and without paying the amount of withdrawals to the account holder and thus failed to follow the procedure outlined in Rule 134 and 135 of Rules of Branch Offices, 6th Edition.
Sl.No. Date of withdrawal as Amount of per SB-7 withdrawal in Rs.
1 08.12.2018 5000/-
2 10.12.2018 5000/-
3 11.12.2018 5000/-
Therefore, it is alleged that, Smt. Manjula S, while functioning as GDSBPM/DP, Kalari BO a/w Magadi S.O. has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty contravening the provisions of Rule 21 (i) & (ii) of S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 23 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020.
Supdt. of Post Offices, Channapatna division, Channapatna 562160"
16. With regard to the above charges, confession of the Applicant vide letter dated 22.02.2019 is as follows:-
"To, From:
S.P.M. GDSBPM/DP
Magadi S.O Kalari B.O a/w
Magadi Magadi S.O
Sub: To remit the amount to U.C.R-reg.
Sir,
I am discharging my duty as
GDSBPM/DP in the above B.O, on 9.1.19 I have WD (withdrawn) the amount of Rs.5000/- in SB Account No.0806126096. But, the Account Holder has not produced the Pass Book, it is not possible for me to make entry of the said transaction. But now the said Account Holder alleged that I have not received the amount, Pass Book was lying in the house only and the Left Thumb Mark appeared in SB-7 is not mine. It is wrong on my part to carryout the transaction without Pass Book, hence, I request your goodself to kindly permit me to deposit the said amount to U.C.R and issued the receipt thereof. Date: 22.2.19 S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 24 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Place: Kalari Yours, Sd/- Manjula S GDSBPM/DP"
17. Annexure - R6 is extracted as follows:
"To From
S.P.M. GDSBPM/DP
Magadi SO Kalari BO a/w
Magadi Magadi SO
Sub: Amount credit to UCR - regarding. Respected, I am working in above mentioned BO as GDSBPM/DP. On 09.01.2019 Rs. 5000/-withdrawn from 58 Account Number 0806126096 without passbook due to account holder not submitted the same so that transaction I am not entered in the passbook. But the account holder now blaming that they have not taken withdrawal pass book kept in their house only and also stating that the thumb impressed on SB-7 is not the depositor. Without pass book transaction done by me is fault hence I am requesting that credit the said amount under UCR and give me a receipt.
Date: 22.02.2019 Place: Kalari Yours, Manjula S GDS BPM/DP"
The above letter of the applicant are self-explanatory and do not need any further elaboration.
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 25 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
18. The Inquiry Officer vide Inquiry Report dated 20.05.2022 observed as under:
"6. Analysis and Assessment of Evidence:
6.1 Based on documents, depositions of witnesses and arguments of PO and CGS the evidence is analyzed and assessed as under.
a) All the prosecution documents listed in annexure III of the charge sheet were taken on record as EXP-1 to EXP- 43, and defence documents from EXD-1 to EXD-16 were also taken on record.
b) Oral evidence of ten (10) prosecution witnesses listed in the annexure IV of the charge sheet was duly recorded and no witness on behalf of the CBPM.
c) The main issue for determination as per article-I to VI of the memorandum charges is that the CBPM, Smt S Manjula, had shown withdrawal amounts as detailed in each article of charge in r/o SB accounts in question, accounted for in BO accounts without taking the signature from the actual account holder in the SB-7 vouchers and without paying the amount of withdrawals S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 26 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE to the account holder and thus failed to follow the procedure outlined in Rule 134 and 135 of Rules of Branch Offices, 6th Edition and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty contravening the provisions of Rule 21 (i) & (ii) of Department of Posts; Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020.
6.2 The connected witnesses as listed in the Annexure- IV of the memorandum of charges were attended the inquiry sitting and their depositions were recorded. The witnesses deposed on behalf of the prosecution are as under.
PW-1 Sri. Rangaswamaiah, S/o Veeraguddaiah, Halasinganahalli, Kalari post. PW-2 Sri. Mahesha U s/o Umesha, Virupasandra, Ramanagara-562159. PW-3 Sri. Chikkasiddegowda, SPM, Magadi SO-562120. PW-4 Sri. Premakumar K N, Mail overseer-I, Channapatna sub division, Channapatna -562160.
PW-5 Smt. Ashwini TM, GDSBPM, KP Doddi BO a/w Ramanagaram MDG-
562159 (formerly GDSBPM/DP, Bilgumba BO a/w Magadi SO- 562120).
PW-6 Sri. Harsha M R, ASP, Bengaluru west Sub division-I, Bengaluru-
560013 (formerly ASP, Channapatna Sub Division, Channapatna- 562160).
PW-7 Smt. Ranganayaki MC the then SPM, Magadi SO now SPM, Thippasandra SO-562131.
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 27 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE PW-8 Sri. Ranganath SM, ASP, Channapatna Sub Division, Channapatna-
562160.
PW-9 Sri. H.M. Raghu, P.I. and Finger print expert, Finger Print Section, O/% Supdt. of Police, Ramanagara District, Ramanagara-562159. PW-10 Sri Sudrashan, ASP (Hq), Bengaluru West Division, Bengaluru-560086 The following witnesses did not attend the inquiry, for the reasons noted against each.
Sl. Name & address Remarks
No.
1 Smt. Bhadramma, w/o Late Expired, hence
Thimmarayappa, Halasinganahalli dropped.
village, Kalari post, Magadi-
562120.
2 Smt. Geetha H C D/o Did not attend the
Channigappa, Halasinganahalli inquiry sitting
village, Kalari post, Magadi inspite of two
562120. notices, hence
dropped.
19. The detailed and clinical analysis of the report by the Inquiry Officer, the confession statements of the applicant and the point wise rebuttal of the contentions of the Counsel for applicant and by the Counsel for respondents, very clearly and emphatically prove that the inquiry was done as per the laid down guidelines and S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 28 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE procedures and enough opportunity was also given to the applicant to defend herself at every stage.
20. It is also seen that the Appellate Authority has adequately addressed each and every contention in the representation of the applicant. The relevant portion of the Appellate Authority's order dated 14.03.2023 is extracted as follows:
"3. The Appellant has advanced the following grounds in support of her prayer.
i)Disciplinary Authority and Inquiry Authority had expressed their own opinion without giving Importance to the basic rules, valid points of defence arguments.
ii) ............
iii) That primary prosecution witnesses Smt Bhadramma (SB A/C 0806126096 of Article-I), Smt Parvathamma (SB 0806171528-Article-II), Smt Mahadeavamma (SB 3278331906-Article-III), Smt Shivarajamma (SB0806197225-Article-IV), Smt Ambika R (3241036838-Article-V), Sri Basavaraju (SB 0806144904-Article-VI) have not attended the oral Inquiry. Further, as required under Govt of India instructions DPAR OM No 134/7/75-AVD.I dated 11.06.1976, the statement of witnesses got S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 29 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE admitted as evidence if they are read out to them during the oral inquiry. But in this case, all the above witnesses did not attend inquiry and confirmed their authenticity.
Therefore, the Passbooks lost their evidentiary value and proving the charges based on invalid documents is injustice.
This has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Canara Bank Vs P.C.Jain AIR 1968 SC 983, Ministry of Finance Vs S.B.Ramesh AIR 1998 SC 853 and Kuldeep Singh Vs Commissioner of Police AIR 1999 SC 677and Nirmala J Jhala Vs State of of Gujurat and another and another CJ(SC) 408.
iv) That the Appellant in EXP-6, 7, 11, 16, 21, 26, 31 and 38 categorically wrote that concerned Depositors had withdrawn their amount and the alleged amount was paid and hence, she denled all the charges at every stage of inquiry.
v) That the learned IA has stated in his IO Report that the allegation is supported by documentary evidences Ignoring the rulings and Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement. Since the prosecution documents have lost their evidentiary value, the analysis and findings of IA is totally wrong and the penalty awarded on the basis of prejudiced, biased findings is injustice.
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 30 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
vi) Further, the version of the Disciplinary Authority in his final proceedings that the charges are proved based on the documentary evidence adduced during the Inquiry is paralogy as none of the depositors attended and Identified the documents before IA. The departmental witnesses are not primary witnesses and they are not deponent/owner of these witnesses and they cannot tell the exact truth on the transaction happened between the Appellant and the depositors. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority only depended on the report of IA which is injustice.
vii) That the comments/opinion of the Disciplinary Authority at page 8 of the proceedings questions the knowledge of the DA on the disciplinary matters as he observed "Abstaining of defence witnesses from the inquiry is not an advantage for the CGDS."
"It is not the obligation of PO to bring all the prosecution witnesses and if the CGDS wanted to prove her innocence she could have brought them into the inquiry to elicit the truth".....................
viii) ........as per Govt of India instructions at Sl.
No 25 of Rule-14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 it was issued based on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the statements obtained during the preliminary enquiry/investigations be read out S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 31 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE during the oral Inquiries if the statement is admitted by the witness.
ix) .......Disciplinary Authority in page 7 of the proceedings admitted that Smt Bhadramma Account holder of 0806126096 expired during the course of the oral inquiry and EXP-5 which was written by Smt Geetha on behalf of the depositor, did not attend the inquiry and thereby not confirmed the veracity of EXP-5. Therefore, EXP-5 lost its evidentiary value. But the Disciplinary Authority depended on the report given by the Police Inspector/Forensic expert Sri H.M.Raghu to prove the Article-I which is ridiculous as the cloud persists on the verification of thumb impression by PW-9 Sri H.M.Raghu.
x) ............
xi) That Disciplinary Authority observed in his proceedings that the Appellant credited the amount to the Department in support of his contention of proving the charges. This is frivolous and paralogy as Disciplinary Authority/Investigating Officers themselves putting pressure through threatening on the Appellant to credit Rs 64,000/ till today.
4. I have gone through the relevant case records and Appeal in detail. My findings and observations on the submission points of the Appellant are as under:
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 32 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
i)....... it is an admitted fact that the six depositors who are cited as prosecution witnesses did not attend the Inquiry. Further, Smt Bhadramma Depositor of SB Account cited in Article-I, expired before her examination in the inquiry.
However, the said SB-7 withdrawal voucher was sent to Forensic Lab seeking expert opinion and the expert opinion received that the LTM available in the said Voucher and the actual LTM of the Depositor, differs.
Sri H.M.Raghu, Police Inspector, Forensic expert attended the Inquiry and Identified his report submitted confirming that the LTM found in the SB-7 Voucher pertaining to the SB A/c 0806126096 of Smt Bhadramma differs from the actual LTM. ...................... To add, PW-1 during examination, identified EXP-5 i.e. the statement given by Smt Bhadramma in connection with her complaint of non payment of Rs.5000/ under his witness, signature and address.
ii) .............. the Inquiry records/evidences consisted not only the statements of the Depositors of SB Accounts but the persons who authored statements were examined, there were SB Withdrawal Vouchers, Passbooks, Ledger copies and Branch Post Office records and the entries available therein which impeccably substantiate that the S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 33 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE alleged offence had been committed. Further on perusal of those SB Withdrawal Vouchers, various procedural lapses, discerned that Appellant had failed to obtain the witness for LTM and put initial for having verified the signature with the Specimen Signature. Though these omissions are not part of the original charges, but they are considered material as there was opportunity to the Appellant to prove her innocence by adducing any additional defense witnesses who have witnessed in the EXP-3 if the withdrawal to the illiterate depositor was actually effected after obtaining LTM Impression in his/her presence. Therefore, the Appellant could have effectively utilized the opportunity to disprove the charges and prove her innocence.
iii) .........
iv) it is an admitted fact that Rs.5000/- credited by the Appellant on 22.02.2019 i,e on the day when the fraud came to light. However, in the appeal, it is contended that the said amount was credited as it was pressurized by the Investigating Officer. But during cross examination of said Investigating Officer, no such questions raised to elicit the truth as to why the Investigating Officer pressurized the Appellant. Therefore, taking the grounds of pressurizing at this stage without utilizing the given opportunity to defend the case during the S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 34 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE course of oral inquiry, is not fit for consideration at this stage.
vi) ........... the primary function of the Appellant is to accept the deposits and allow withdrawals to the POSB Customers with utmost devotion, diligence and integrity in order to retain the faith and trust earned by the Department over many decades in handling public money. But the evidences clearly establish that the Appellant failed to discharge her primary duties as per the codified inviolable rules.
vii) ........... it appears quite surprising to see that in the concluding para of her appeal, the Appellant expressed regret and assured that she would not come under adverse notice of the administration in future. This is totally contrary to her stand taken since she denied to have committed any of the allegations levelled. The question of coming under adverse notice unless, she had committed any offense as alleged, is out of place."
21. Likewise, the Revision Authority has issued a detailed and well considered order. The Revision Petition preferred by the applicant (Annexure-R26) was examined by Respondent No.2 in the capacity of Revisionary Authority under Rule 19 of Department of S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 35 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Posts, Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020 with reference to all relevant documents and records. Respondent No.2 after detailed analysis of the case, observed that the Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No.4) need no interference, as all the reasonable opportunities have been afforded to the applicant and there was no denial of principles of natural justice at any stage to prove her innocence. In exercise of statutory powers vested under Rule 19 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, Respondent No.2 passed an order vide Memo No. VIG/15-05/2023 dated 11.12.2023 that the petition dated 16.08.2023 preferred by the applicant is "Rejected". The relevant/pertinent portions of the order passed by the Revisional Authority are produced below as follows:
"Observations on the Grounds of Petition
1. The case was detected by a complaint from the Account Office alleging suspicious transactions. Account office will be in touch with the Branch Post office directly and it is an authority where the transactions of the Branch S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 36 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Post offices are checked and consolidated. Investigation was carried out and further based on the outcome of investigation, the Disciplinary Authority decided the case as per the provisions of the Rules and after scrupulous examination of the records, Inquiry report and defence of the Petitioner.
2. All the vital documents mentioned in the Articles of Charge are identified and marked in the inquiry. Those documents and statements recorded are identified and its genuineness confirmed during the course of inquiry by the departmental witnesses. Even if the witnesses were present during the inquiry, the documentary evidences cannot be discarded by them Departmental inquiries are Quasi judicial in nature. The standard of proof required in a departmental inquiry is preponderance of probability.
3. ......
4. It is not mandatory to get all the transactions checked through Forensic experts. Sample will show the position of the group. If there are 100 transactions, it is not mandatory to subject all the 100 transactions to prove the case. A lapse is a lapse even if it is one or one hundred. To prove the misconduct of the petitioner it is not mandatory to send every voucher to Finger Print experts.
7. The departmental witness, who recorded the statements are not the secondary evidences but indeed the persons, who discovered the misconduct of the petitioner initially. The documents collected and statements recorded S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 37 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE cannot be discarded at any point of time and these documents and statements are not challenged by the petitioner at any point of time in the inquiry. Rules of evidence under Indian Evidence Act do not apply in departmental inquiries. The inquiry records/evidences consisted not only the statements of the Depositors of SB Accounts but the persons, who authored statements were examined, there were SB Withdrawal Vouchers, Passbooks, Ledger copies and Branch Post Office records and the entries available therein, which substantiate that the alleged offence had been committed.
11. Disciplinary Authority based on the report given by Sri H.M Inspector, Forensic expert who attended the inquiry, identified his report submitted confirming that the LTM found in the SB-7 Voucher pertaining to the SB A/c 0806126096 of Smt Bhadramma differs from the actual LTM This standard of proof is adequate to arrive at the decision that there is no the fact of non-examination of Smt Bhadramma."
22. Regarding the delay in completion of disciplinary inquiry, the learned Counsel for respondents had given adequate reasons. It is well established that cases related to embezzlement, fraud, corruption and crime as it is in this OA, are to be treated on a different foot as per relevant orders. Adverting to the time limits set by the DOPT and also the judgment in the case of S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 38 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291, it would be beneficial to examine the subsequent judgments and the extant DOPT OMs. They are discussed as below:
a. The applicant was kept under put off duty on 28.02.2019 and the charge memo was served upon her on 30.09.2020. The order of dismissal was passed on 06.09.2022 after completion of the disciplinary proceedings.
The above timelines , though indicate delay, have been well explained by the learned Counsel for respondents and also by the Disciplinary, Appellate and Revision authorities. Furthermore, they are within the boundaries of GSR No.156 dated 19th October 22 which is spelt below for ease of reference :
"1. Short title and commencement:
(1) These rules may be called the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Amendment Rules, 2022.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
2. In the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, in rule 10, in sub-rule (7), for S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 39 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE the proviso, the following provisos shall be substituted, namely:-
"Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under subrule (2), if the Government servant continues to be under detention and in such case the ninety-days' period shall be computed from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later:
Provided further that in a case where no charge sheet is issued under these rules, the total period, under suspension or deemed suspension, as the case may be, including any extended period in terms of subrule (6) shall not exceed, -
(a) two hundred seventy days from the date of order of suspension, if the Government servant is placed under suspension in terms of clause (a) of sub-rule (1); or
(b) two years from the date of order of suspension if the Government servant is placed under suspension in terms of clause (aa) or clause (b) of sub-rule (1) as the case may be; or
(c) two years from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later, in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2).".
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 40 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE (underlining is ours) b. In the judgment of the Madurai Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of the Superintending Engineer & Ors. Vs. Mohan Kumar in WA (MD) No.1827 of 2021 delivered on 20th January, 2022, referring to the DoPT instructions dated 26th April, 2016, it was held as follows:.
"....16. It was instructed that the time limit of three months on suspension cases is applicable only to the cases arising out of departmental disciplinary enquiries pertaining to nonvigilance and/or any non-criminal cases and the said time limit is not applicable to suspension of an employee facing criminal case or grave corruption charges pending against him."
c. Furthermore, para 20 of the same judgment mentions as follows:
"......20. In the case of Bimal Kumar Mohanty (supra), the Apex Court held that suspension is not a punishment, but only one for forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. It is with the direction that each case may be considered on its facts and taking into account the gravity of the offence S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 41 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE or the misconduct. The interference with the order of suspension should not be driven in reference to a judgment, but needs to be determined on facts and after considering the rules governing the delinquent. Judicial review in such matters should be minimal. In the instant case, the allegation against the delinquent is quite serious, as he not only demanded but accepted bribe and was caught red-handed by the Anti Corruption Department. The aforesaid were the relevant facts, but were not considered by the learned Single Judge while causing interference with the order of suspension. It is even after ignoring the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in the case of A. Srinivasan (supra), wherein it was categorically held that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) does not evolve a general principle for causing interference with the order of suspension if charge-sheet is not served or charge memo is not filed within three months of the order of suspension. The finding of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.Srinivasan (supra) has even been ignored, though binding in nature."
d. Furthermore, in the judgment of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the case of Vikash Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors., WP (C) 16499/2022 dated 01st September, 2023. It was held as follows:
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 42 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE ".......9. Observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, 1994 (1) L.L.N. 889, after considering the ratio of earlier decisions may be beneficially referred in this regard: ............... Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharging the duties of office or post held by him. In other words, it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruit and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent haying had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry, etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. It would be another thing if the action actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 43 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge."
10....................................................................
11.......... This Court relying upon earlier orders passed in Govt. NCT of Delhi v. Dr.Rishi Anand, W.P.(C) 8134/2017 decided on September 13, 2017 declined to interfere with the continued suspension order of the petitioner considering the allegations against the petitioner and held that there was serious and valid consideration to justify the continued suspension of the petitioner. The observations in para 17 to 19 in Dr. Rishi Anand (supra) are also apt to be noticed and clearly spell out that power of competent authority to pass orders of suspension have not been extinguished in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) merely because the charge-sheet is not issued within three months of suspension but the said power can be exercised if good reasons are forthcoming:
"17. It may not always be possible for the government to serve the charge sheet on the officer concerned within a period of 90 days, or even the extended period, for myriad justifiable reasons............." On a reading of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), we are of the view that the Supreme Court has not denuded the Government S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 44 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE of its authority to continue/ extend the suspension of the government servant - before, or after the service of the charge sheet - if there is sufficient justification for it. The Supreme Court has, while observing that the suspension should not be extended beyond three months - if within this period the memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer, has stopped short of observing that if the charge memo/ charge-sheet is not issued within three months of suspension, the suspension of the government servant shall automatically lapse, without any further order being passed by the Government. No such consequence - of the automatic lapsing of suspension at the expiry of three months if the charge memo/ charge- sheet is not issued during that period, has been prescribed. ................................................
18. The direction issued by the Supreme Court is that the currency of the suspension should not be extended beyond three months, if the charge memorandum/ charge-sheet is not issued within the period of 3 months of suspension. But it does not say that if, as a matter of fact, it is so extended it would be null and void and of no effect. The power of the competent authority to pass orders under Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules extending the suspension has not been extinguished by the Supreme Court. The said power can be exercised if good reasons therefor are forthcoming.
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 45 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE xxx xxx xxx
34. For the foregoing reasons, the reference is answered by holding that:
(i) The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary, supra, does not lay down absolute proposition of law that an order of suspension cannot be continued beyond the period of three months if the memorandum of charges/chargesheet has not been served within three months, or if memorandum of charges/chargesheet is served without reasoned order of extension. (ii) The judgment in R. Balaji, supra, has no reference to the earlier judgments of co-equal strength and is thereby rendered per incuriam."
23. Hence, it is seen that the duration of disciplinary proceedings are fully covered under the DOPT Orders and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as cited supra.
24. Regarding non-examination of a few Prosecution Witnesses, it is a settled principle of law that the prosecution is not obligated to examine every single witness listed in the charge sheet/charge memo. They can choose which witnesses to examine based on the relevance and strength of their testimony. The prosecution's decision not to examine a witness does not automatically lead to an adverse inference S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 46 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE against them. It is the prerogative of the Inquiring Authority to decide which Prosecution Witnesses to examine and which ones to be given up. It is not essential that all the PWs which were cited should be examined. In this regard, it would be beneficial to refer to the relevant portions of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Dalbir Singh, in Civil Appeal No. 5848/2021, AIR (2021) SC 4504. The relevant paras are as follows:
"20. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh was dealing with the issue of non-examination of passengers when the allegation against the conductor was non-issuance of the tickets. This Court held that in a domestic enquiry, strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply and that all materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. This Court held as under:
"4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 47 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case- law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 48 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE recorded. The 'residuum' rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passages from American Jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence -- not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. ..........."
25. Furthermore, there are a catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts which indicate that the Courts and Tribunals can interfere in Disciplinary Proceedings in very limited situations and circumstances. In brief, the Situations in which Courts can interfere in departmental proceedings are delineated below:
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 49 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE "A. Violation of Natural Justice:
If the principles of natural justice, such as the right to a fair hearing or the right to cross-examine witnesses, are violated, the court may intervene.
B. Violation of Statutory Regulations:
If the departmental inquiry was conducted contrary to the prescribed statutory rules and regulations, the court can step in.
C. Perverse or Arbitrary Findings:
If the findings of the disciplinary authority are found to be perverse, arbitrary, or not supported by any evidence, the court can interfere.
D. Extraneous Considerations:
If the disciplinary authority's decision is based on considerations outside the scope of the evidence or the merits of the case, the court may intervene. E. Disproportionate Punishment: If the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct, the court may consider it a ground for interference, although courts are generally reluctant to substitute their own judgment on punishment.
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 50 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE F. Lack of Jurisdiction or Bias:
If the disciplinary authority lacks the jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry or if there is a demonstrable bias against the delinquent employee, the court may intervene.
G. Violation of Statutory Rules:
If the disciplinary proceedings violate any specific statutory rules governing such proceedings, the court can interfere.
H. No Evidence:
If the disciplinary authority's findings are not supported by any evidence, the court can intervene."
26. In this regard, for ease of convenience, relevant extract of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, in para nos. 12, 13, 16 & 17 are cited below:
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 51 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (2015) 2 SCC 610 (1977) 2 SCC 491 (2014) 4 SCC 108
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 52 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.
14. ........................
15. .......................
16. These principles have been succinctly summed up by the living legend and centenarian V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. in State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh [(1977) 2 SCC 491: 1977 SCC (L&S) 298]. To quote the unparalleled and inimitable expressions: (SCC p. 493, para 4) "4. ... in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 53 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor textbooks, although we have been taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good."
27. All the contentions and averments of the learned Counsel for applicant have been adequately addressed and answered by the learned Counsel for the respondents also in the order of the Appellate Authority and Revision Authority. Nothing has been brought on record by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the Disciplinary Proceedings which were conducted against the applicant, suffered from any of the infractions mentioned above. Further, the applicant had himself admitted his lapse in his written statement cited as Annexure A2.
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE 2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30' 54 OA.No.170/00117/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
28. (a) Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority vide No. F/4-3/Disc/18-19 dated 06.09.2022 passed the Order of Dismissal from Engagement, of the Applicant, after due consideration of the inquiry report dated 20.05.2022.
(b) The Appellate Authority, having considered all the points put forth in the appeal dated 29.10.2022 of the applicant, issued a detailed and well-reasoned speaking order with cogent reasons for each of the grounds raised by the applicant and rejected the appeal vide No. BGR/VIG/10- 3/MS/2022 dated 14.03.2023.
(c) Subsequently, the Revision Authority after considering Revision Petition dated 16.08.2023 of the applicant, rejected the Revision petition vide order No.VIG/15-05/2023 dated 11.12.2023.
29. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Disciplinary Proceedings and the punishment imposed. Hence, the O.A is liable to be dismissed.
30. The OA is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
sd/- sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ms/sd
S SARALADEVI
S SARALADEVICAT BANGALORE
2025.10.22 13:59:52+05'30'