Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Ruby Dash vs Deptt Of Postal on 30 July, 2025
1 O.A.No. 260/00286 of 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00286 of 2025
Reserved on 18.07.2025 Pronounced on 30.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Ruby Dash, aged about 41 years, W/o- Sri Ashish
Kumar Mishra, At Lane-6, B-27, Kalyan Nagar,
SRIT Colony, PO/PS-Budharaja, Dist. Sambalpur.
Presently working as Inspector of Posts, BG 1st
Sub-Division, RMS Berhampur 760001. BG
Division.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through its Secretary,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, SansadMarg,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Director of Postal Services, (H.Q.), O/o-The
Chief P.M.G., Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar-751001.
3. The Chief Postmaster General, Odisha Circle,
Bhubaneswar, District:-Khordha.
......Respondents
For the applicant : M/s. J.Jena & S.Jena, Counsel
For the respondents : Ms. R.L.Biswal, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2025.07.30 15:38:53
+05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00286 of 2025
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
Smt. Ruby Dash working as Inspector of Posts, BG 1st division, RMS BG Division, Berhampur is the applicant in this OA filed under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985 praying for a direction to respondent No.2 (DPS, BBSR) to supply copy of the authentication certificate of the transcript of conversation of petitioner with Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Acharya as sought by her in representation dated 22.09.2023 inter alia stating that alleging malfeasance or misfeasance charge sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued to her vide memorandum No. Vig/9-1(4)/2022 dated 26.06.2023 accompanying with all the listed documents except the documents shown in the list at Sl. No. 57, viz. Pen drive containing call recording of phonic conversation dated 20.07.2021 between her and Shri Sudhansu Kumar Acharya GDS BPM, Jhilminda BO. She submitted representation on 22.09.2023 requesting supply her the document at Sl. No. 57. Since the same was not supplied, she approached this Bench in OA No. 19/2024. During pendency of the OA, she was given the detailed call recording and phonic conversation stored in Pen RAVI KUMAR 2025.07.30 15:38:53 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/00286 of 2025 Drive and, consequently, the OA No. 19/2024 was disposed of as infructuous vide order dated 29.10.2024, which order of this Bench was challenged by her before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 9774/2025, which was dismissed on 10.04.2025 thereby upholding the order of this Bench dated 29.10.2024 in OA 19/2024. According to the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, although the applicant did not exhaustively stated supplying he document at Sl. No. 57 with certificate of authenticity in the earlier OA, in terms of Section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, corresponding to Section 63(4) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, any electronic record sought to be used as evidence must be accompanied with a certificate of authenticity but the same was not supplied to her while giving the Pen Drive and before giving the said certificate to her proceeding further in the matter will be a complete harassment to the applicant when the said document was ultimately, in absence of any such certificate, to be held not admissible in law.
2. Ld. Counsel for the respondents objected the very maintainability of this OA by stating that, according to the applicant, in terms of the provision under Section 65B (4) of the Indian RAVI KUMAR 2025.07.30 15:38:53 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00286 of 2025 Evidence Act, 1872, corresponding to Section 63(4) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the recordings of the conversation supplied to the her should have been preceded by an certificate of authenticity and, in absence of such certificate, the conversation supplied in Pen Drive is not admissible in law but as per the provision/law, the Central Administrative Tribunal is not bound by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) or Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) or the Indian Evidence Act and shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of the Act and of any Rules made by the Central Government. Further, it is stated that the evidence required in the departmental enquiry is not regulated by the Evidence Act, 1872/BSA, 2023 rather the malfeasance or misfeasance of the delinquent officer is proved in the inquiry based on the preponderance of probabilities. Also, Ld. Counsel for the respondents by drawing our attention to the order of this Tribunal dated 29.10.2024 in OA No. 19/2024 earlier filed by the applicant, which was disposed of as infructuous and subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa has submitted that the very question RAVI KUMAR 2025.07.30 15:38:53 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00286 of 2025 that she was supplied the document at Sl. No. 57 without any authenticity certificate and, therefore, till supply of such authenticity certificate, the interim order shall be passed by the Tribunal staying the proceedings shall be allowed to continue. But, this Tribunal did not agree to such submission and disposed of the OA as infructuous, which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. By filing the successive application, raising the same question, attract the principle of res judicata. Further, according to him, in terms of the provision under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the statement of defence of the delinquent under Rule (5)(a) is limited to admitting or denying the charge and for such purpose inspection of document is not necessary as the delinquent officer will get full opportunity to seek such documents during the course of inquiry vide G.I. Central Vigilance Commissioner, Letter No. 4/42/73-R, dated 19.09.1973. Hence, the respondents' counsel has prayed for dismissal of this OA.
3. We have considered the arguments advanced by the parties and perused the records.
4. We find that applicant has filed this OA without enclosing thereto the article of charge and the imputation of allegation and in RAVI KUMAR 2025.07.30 15:38:53 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00286 of 2025 absence of the said vital documents, this Tribunal is precluded by the applicant to know what are the allegations made in the charge sheet against him. However, the applicant has enclosed the list of documents along with the memorandum of charge sheet wherefrom we find that there are 90 documents relied on by the department in support of the allegation(s) giving the opportunity to the applicant to submit his defence and, as admitted by the applicant, the charge sheet was accompanied by 89 documents except the document at Sl. No. 57. The authenticity certificate as sought by her was not a listed document. She submitted representation on 22.09.2023 praying therein to supply her the transcript of conversation made by her with Shri Sudhanshu Kumar Acharya and copy of the authentication certificate obtained from the competent authority as required under law. Thereafter, alleging non-supply of the same, she has approached this Tribunal and during the pendency of the OA the conversation was supplied to here in a Pen Drive. When the matter was taken up, Ld. Counsel for the applicant specifically raised the question that since the Pen Drive is without accompanying with the authenticity certificate as required under law, the same is not acceptable. This RAVI KUMAR 2025.07.30 15:38:53 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00286 of 2025 Tribunal even after taking note of the aforesaid submission disposed of the OA as infructuous vide order dated 29.10.2024. The applicant raised the above point in the Writ Petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa challenging the order of this Bench, which was dismissed on 10.04.2025 observing as under:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Annexure-A/3, which is annexed to the Original Application, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Director of Postal Services (HQs) praying therein to supply documents viz.; (i) supply of Pen Drive as per the Listed Document Sl. No.57 in Annexure-III of the charge memo, (ii) transcript of the conversation between her and Sri Sudhanshu Kumar Acharya and (iii) copy of the authentication certificate obtained from the competent Authority as required under law. However, the contention was raised that the authentication certificate has not been supplied to the petitioner and therefore, till the supply of the authentication certificate, the interim order should be allowed to continue.
Learned Tribunal taking note of the submission and after perusing the report has been pleased to observe that since the main prayer of the petitioner, the applicant in the O.A. was to direct the respondents to supply the call recording and phonic conversation stored in the Pen Drive as per listed document at Sl. No.57 and the same has already been supplied, which is not disputed by the petitioner, there remains nothing to be adjudicated in the Original Application. Accordingly, the M.A. No.292 of 2024 filed by the respondents was allowed and the ad interim order dated 19.01.2024 was vacated and the O.A. was also disposed of as infructuous.
Ms. Sailabala Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the averments taken in the M.A., it is clear that even though the petitioner has sought for three documents including the Pen Drive but only the Pen Drive has been supplied not the other two documents and therefore, the order of the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in the eye of law.
RAVI KUMAR 2025.07.30 15:38:53 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00286 of 2025 Learned Central Government Counsel, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and submitted that in the relief portion, it is specifically mentioned for supply of only the Pen Drive. Nothing has been stated about the other two documents, which are there in Annexure-A/3 and therefore, when the said Pen Drive has already been supplied, which is not disputed by the petitioner, the further prayer of the petitioner to supply her the other two documents should not be considered.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, we are of the view that mere non-supply of document sought for by the delinquent employee in course of disciplinary enquiry does not in itself amount to non-effective representation unless the manner of prejudice that would ensue is pleaded. In the instant case, while admitted the respondents supplied the document prayed for by the petitioner in her prayer she failed to account for the manner of prejudice he would undergo for non-supply of other documents which she demanded passively not insisting the same in the Original Application before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal.
Keeping in view the fact that the prayer of the petitioner has been duly taken care of by the respondents by supplying the Pen Drive, non-supply of other documents pointed later by the petitioner, not relied upon by the respondents against the petitioner may well be taken advantage of by the petitioner in accordance with law in the disciplinary proceeding itself. Hence, while we do not find it proper to express any opinion on the aforesaid claim of the petitioner, we find no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned and the same stands confirmed."
5. Thus, going by the aforesaid order of this Tribunal and the order of the Hon'ble High court of Orissa noted above, entertaining this petition with the relief made therein would tantamount to sitting over the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and deviating the RAVI KUMAR 2025.07.30 15:38:53 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00286 of 2025 well sound principle of res judicata. Hence, on this count, this OA is held to be not maintainable in the present form.
6. It is also noteworthy at this stage that the DoP&T taking into consideration of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag v G M, (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764 issued OM No. 11012/6/2007-Estt.(A-III) dated 21.07.2016 stating therein that Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. in the departmental inquiry the standard of evidence is on preponderance of probability.
7. Unlike in a criminal proceeding, in a disciplinary proceeding the strict rules of evidence and the provisions of the Evidence Act do not apply. The Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors, 1996 AIR 484 held that neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. RAVI KUMAR 2025.07.30 15:38:53 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/00286 of 2025
8. In the case of Bank of India And Anr Vs Degala Suryanarayana, AIR 1999 SC 2407, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer.
9. In the case of Workmen of Balmadies Estate vs. Management Balmadies Estates and others, 2008 (4) SCC 517, it has been held as under:
"7. It is fairly well settled now that in view of the wide power of the Labour Court it can, in an appropriate case, consider the evidence which has been considered by the domestic Tribunal and in a given case on such consideration arrive at a conclusion different from the one arrived at by the Domestic Tribunal. The assessment of evidence in a domestic enquiry is not required to be made by applying the same yardstick as a Civil Court could do when a lis is brought before it. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act') is not applicable to the proceeding in a domestic enquiry so far as the domestic enquiries are concerned, though principles of fairness are to apply. It is also fairly well settled that in a domestic enquiry guilt may not be established beyond reasonable doubt and the proof of misconduct would be sufficient. In a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ domestic enquiry all RAVI KUMAR 2025.07.30 15:38:53 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/00286 of 2025 materials which are logically probative including hearsay evidence can be acted upon provided it has a reasonable nexus and credibility."
10. The enquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position [Aejaz Hussain Vs The State of Karnataka & Ors, AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1139]
11. It is a fact that Central Administrative Tribunal is not bound by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) or Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) or the Indian Evidence Act and shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of the Act and of any Rules made by the Central Government. The Applicant did not place on record any such Rule or law to establish that the document like at Sl. No. 57, must be supplied to the employee concerned with authenticity certificate to enable him to submit the reply to the charge sheet. Rather we find force on the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondents RAVI KUMAR 2025.07.30 15:38:53 +05'30' 12 O.A.No. 260/00286 of 2025 that in terms of G.I. Central Vigilance Commissioner, Letter No. 4/42/73-R, dated 19.09.1973 [embodied in CCS (CC&A) Rules] of the Rules the defence of the delinquent under Rule (5) (a) of the Rules to the charge sheet is limited to admitting or denying the charge and for such denial, the documents is not necessary since the delinquent employee will have full opportunity to seek the said documents during the course of enquiry. Further, we find that the allegation against the applicant has not been brought home based only on the document at Sl.No.57 rather the list of document contains as many as 89 other documents. Be that as it may, we find that it is the specific case of the Applicant that non supply of the authenticity certificate in support of the Pen Drive to her is opposed to the provision under Section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, corresponding to Section 63(4) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and, for violation of the provision of Evidence Act/BSA, this Tribunal is not the appropriate forum to decide the same. On this score also, we are of the considered view that this OA is not maintainable.
12. Since the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide Memorandum dated 26.06.2023 got considerably delayed at the behest of the RAVI KUMAR 2025.07.30 15:38:53 +05'30' 13 O.A.No. 260/00286 of 2025 Applicant, we hope and trust, the Respondents shall do well to complete the same, without further delay.
13. With the discussions and observation, this OA stands dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2025.07.30 15:38:53
+05'30'