Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
K Lakshmi Narayana vs Dept Of Posts on 29 January, 2026
1
OA.No.1118/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
(Circuit Sitting at Vijayawada)
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.020/1118/2017
ORDER RESERVED ON 17.12.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 29.01.2026
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
K. Lakshmi Narayana,
S/o Chengaiah, aged 36 years,
Occ. Postal Assistant, Rajampeta Head Office,
R/o. YBN Palli, Near Sub-Station,
Rajampeta-516115.
.....Applicant.
(By Advocate: Mr. B.Gurudas)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Communication & Information,
New Delhi.
2. The Chief Post Master General,
Vijayawada.
3. The Director of Postal Services,
Kurnool Region, Kurnool.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Cuddapah Division, Cuddapah.
...Respondents.
(By Advocate Mrs. K Rajitha, Sr.PC for CG)
******
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF
PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=
500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=
APALLI NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN
HYDERABAD, Phone=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d17
9209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8
SANDHY ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of
this document
A Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 18:04:17+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
OA.No.1118/2017
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"... to call for the records relating to and in connection with the impugned Memo No.B/695-1, dt.27.06.2017 of the 4th respondent and also consequential Memo No.Inv/13-KLN/2017 dtd@ Knl the 30.08.2017 of the 3rd respondent and set-aside the same by declaring them as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to release the increments from the date of suspension by treating the period of suspension period as on duty with all consequential and monitory benefits and may pass such order in the interest of justice."
2. Facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are summarized below:
i. The applicant was initially appointed as a Grameen Dak Sevak Mail Carrier on 03.02.2001 at the Kandulavaripalli Branch Post Office Account with Chitvel Sub-Post Office. Thereafter, he was promoted as Postal Assistant through Departmental Test and posted on 13.06.2009 at Rajampeta Head Post Office. After completion of his tenure of four years, on 29.05.2013, he was transferred to the Pullampet Sub-post Office and posted as the Sub-Post Master, having control over 15 Branch Post Offices. The applicant worked in the same post with devotion and dedication. He rendered 17 years of unblemished service, without any remarks in his career.
ii. It is submitted that the applicant's excessive engagement in office work resulted in neglecting proper treatment of his 9 year old daughter, who was suffering from jaundice and could not be saved. Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= APALLI NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d17 9209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8 SANDHY ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 18:04:17+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 OA.No.1118/2017 Thus, the applicant was passing through one of the darkest periods of his life on 07.12.2015.
iii. The GDSMC, C.C. Prasad Rao of Kommanavaripalli BO, was coming to the SO for his own reasons for exchange of the BO bag, though he was expected to do it at Kothapet BO. This was objected to by the applicant, because of which, he carried tales to the Inspector, Rajampet Sub Division. On 18.02.2016, Sri D. Ahammad Hussain, IP Rajampet, threatened and abused the applicant over phone, without any reason. He also warned the applicant that he would use his power to remove him. Hence, the applicant made a complaint, on 19.02.2016, to the Superintendent of Post Offices (SPO's), Cuddapah, for action against the I.P. But, the SPO's did not take any action against him.
iv. The applicant was deputed for MACP-1 training to the PTC, Mysore, on 01.08.2016, which took him 15 days to resume his duties. The applicant's family was living at the quarters attached to the Pullampet SO. During that time, on 12.08.2016, the Inspector, Rajampet, with his follower, Shri D. Chandramouli, GDSMD, caused sexual harassment of his 11 years old daughter. After returning from the PTC, Mysore, the applicant made a complaint, against them, through RLNO.rn541669840in, dt.16.08.2016. Further, the applicant gave a statement, calling for action against them, to the Inquiry Officer, regarding his complaint, on 17.09.2016. After knowing about the applicant's complaints to the SPO's against him, Sri D. Ahammad Hussain, Inspector of Posts, suddenly visited Pullampet SO, on Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= APALLI NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d17 9209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8 SANDHY ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 18:04:17+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA.No.1118/2017 17.10.2016, and started questioning him about opening of new accounts in all categories. The applicant patiently explained to him the statistics and also the practicalities and difficulties in the office, besides the problems on his domestic front. Unmindful of the applicant's explanation, the I.P. demanded a statement from him in a question and answer form. The applicant, accordingly, gave his statement. On 21.10.2016, the Inspector brought the order of the SPO's, Cuddapah, suspending the applicant from service. On 24.10.2016, the applicant sent a request letter to the SPO's to cancel his suspension and permit him to join duty. It was not considered by the 4th Respondent (SPO's). While the applicant was under
suspension, a Charge Memo No.B/695, dated 24.11.2016, was served under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, framing one Charge, alleging that during the period from 30.05.2013 to 19.10.2016, he had failed to open new Accounts under various categories and also to settle maturity/prematurity claims under various categories of accounts received from BOs and also across the SO counters, on various dates, and directed the applicant to submit his explanation, which he submitted on 30.11.2016, denying the charge. He also requested to revoke his suspension by dropping further action. v. As the respondents did not consider his explanation, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Director of Postal Services, Kurnool/R- 3, on 03.12.2016. It is submitted that, while the applicant was under suspension, the respondents appointed an Inquiry Officer(I.O.) and a Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= APALLI NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d17 9209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8 SANDHY ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 18:04:17+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA.No.1118/2017 Presenting Officer(P.O.), on 01.12.2016, and directed the applicant to attend the inquiry on 29.12.2016. The applicant made a representation on 28.12.2016 and also through mail, on the same day, requesting the Inquiry Officer(I.O.) that he was not attending the inquiry owing to financial problems, as he was not sanctioned subsistence allowance and, further, requested to pardon his absence and postpone the inquiry for the reasons mentioned. But, the I.O., without considering the applicant's representation, proceeded with the enquiry, ex-parte, and passed orders against the applicant. Pursuant to the applicant's appeal for revocation of suspension, the respondents revoked his suspension order and reinstated him into service on 05.01.2017. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer issued notice directing the applicant to attend the inquiry on 13.01.2017. During the inquiry, the applicant was supplied Xerox copies of documents, instead of original documents, and a letter was also supplied to the applicant stating he has not co-operated in the inquiry and caused inconvenience to the I.O. During the inquiry, the IO did not permit additional documents, such as the Preliminary Enquiry Report, Statistical Reports, etc. The applicant filed a Bias Petition on 16.01.2017, before the SPO's, Cuddapah, and requested to change the Inquiry Officer. He also complained to the SPOs, Cuddapah, on 19.01.2017, that, during the inquiry, the IO had not given him opportunity to peruse the original documents, and requested to permit the applicant to peruse the original documents. The applicant's Bias Petition was dismissed on 30.01.2017, against which the applicant preferred an appeal before the Director of Postal Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= APALLI NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d17 9209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8 SANDHY ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 18:04:17+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA.No.1118/2017 Services, Kurnool, on 02.02.2017, but the same was also dismissed on 06.03.2017. Thereafter, on 11.04.2017, at the time of examination of four witnesses, the IO gave an opportunity to the applicant, for perusal of original documents and supplied their Xerox copies. The applicant attended further inquiry for examination of the CO by the IO on 21.04.2017. The Presenting Officer (P.O.) submitted a report to the I.O. which only discussed the charge of closing the accounts, but not of opening of the accounts and directed the applicant to submit his explanation, which he submitted on 08.05.2017.
vi. It is further submitted that the applicant was served with the Inquiry Report, dt. 12.05.2017, stating that the charge levelled against the applicant was proved and he was directed to submit his explanation. The applicant once again submitted his explanation on 29.05.2017, stating that, in spite of the charge of failure to open new accounts not being proved, the I.O. had reported that all the charges are proved. However, without considering the applicant's explanation, the following punishment was imposed upon him, vide the Impugned Order, dt. 27.06.2017:
"Reduction of pay by two stages from the stage 9 of Rs.32,300 to stage 7 of Rs.30,500/- in the pay matrix level 4 for a period of 4 years from 01.07.2017 with direction that the charged official will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of this period, the reduction will not have effect of postponing his future increments of simultaneously treating the period of suspension as such for all purpose."
The applicant preferred an appeal on 17.07.2017 against the Punishment Order, dt.27.06.2017, before the Director of Postal Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= APALLI NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d17 9209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8 SANDHY ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 18:04:17+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA.No.1118/2017 Services, Kurnool Region, Kurnool, which was rejected on 30.08.2017.
vii. It is further submitted that there are two parts in the charge. As for the first part, that the applicant had failed to "open the new accounts relating to various categories of accounts", the applicant has made fervent submission that the charge itself is vague. No details of the charge accounts, lying unopened and unattended and since how long at the SO, were given anywhere in the charge sheet. That the substance of imputations of misconduct and misbehaviour should be drawn into a "definite and distinct article of charge was not complied with". At the very outset, there is a clear violation of Rule 14(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which is necessary to take into consideration, before proceeding into the examination of the applicant's guilt. As for the second part of the Article of Charge, the Charge Memo repeats the statements of 4 GDSBPMs, recorded by the Inspector at Rajampet and Pullampet, respectively. In these 4 cases, the applicant had not committed any irregularity.
3. The grounds raised by the Applicant, while seeking relief, are as follows:
i. The respondents ought to have considered that the cases in question were attended to by the applicant despite the confusion prevailing in the PO building, Pullampet. If at all there was a delay, after passing of any case by him, it must be at the respective BOs. It is contended that, based on the applicant's statement, dt. 17.10.2016, the SPOs issued the Suspension Order on 19.10.2016, but he failed to obtain necessary documents which are necessary Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= APALLI NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d17 9209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8 SANDHY ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 18:04:17+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA.No.1118/2017 for keeping the official under suspension. He has emphatically argued that there is no monetary loss to the department and the applicant has not committed any fraud. Even for failure to open the new accounts and failure to settle maturity claims, suspension is not the remedy. According to him, in order to justify this suspension, Rule-14 major punishment charge memo was initiated, otherwise it is a Rule-16 minor punishment case, even if the allegation is proved.
ii. According to the applicant, the matter was already reported to the SPO's Cuddapah, on 16.08.2016, under RLNO.541669840in, and again on 05-01-2017 that 253 Account Opening Forms and 156 closures were kept pending by the Substitute SPM, Sri K. Sudarsan, at the time of the applicant rejoining after revocation of suspension. Even though the applicant reported this to his higher authorities (4th Respondent), they did not take any action to clear the pendency, and failed to give assistance. But the SPO's, in his proceedings, mentioned that the applicant never reported the matter to the higher authorities. The 4th Respondent failed to take disciplinary action against the Substitute SPMs, but he has taken disciplinary action against the applicant, who cleared the pendency.
iii. In the office of the 4th Respondent, it could be seen from the NREGS Death Claim Status Tracking, for Cuddapah, as on dt. 31- 12-2016, that 131 claims were pending for settlement. Among them, there were many items pending for 11 months. The copy of Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= APALLI NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d17 9209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8 SANDHY ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 18:04:17+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA.No.1118/2017 this list was enclosed for reference. It is not correct to say that they are kept pending only by the applicant. Similarly, in case of settlement of pending maturity claims, it was not his fault. Even though, he had attended to that work, they were held up at the BO level for the reasons, such as, non availability of depositor or some other. So, it is not correct to make him the scapegoat for delay. iv. Further, regarding opening of accounts in the Rule 14 charge memo - i) no documents were listed in Annexure-III, and, ii) no witnesses were listed in Annexure-IV. Hence, there was no oral evidence or documentary evidence, in this case. It is asserted that the applicant was not on leave during the entire 4 years as SPM, Pullampet SO, for a single day, except for 2 days, at the time of his daughter's death. There was no grievance from the depositors or from the BPMs, in this case, and also no monetary loss was caused to the Department on account of the applicant's action or inaction. The charge is meant only for harassment and humiliation by the Inspector and the 4th Respondent. The 4th Respondent failed to arrange training to the applicant when the office adopted new Software (Finacle) on 28-05-2017. At that time, the applicant managed the office by consulting his friends and colleagues in other offices over phone. The respondents have not considered his explanation and passed the impugned punishment order which has led not only to monetary loss to the applicant, but will also lead to adverse entry in his APAR which makes him ineligible for departmental examination for the cadre of IPO and MACP-1 Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= APALLI NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d17 9209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8 SANDHY ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 18:04:17+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA.No.1118/2017 promotion, for a period of 5 years, after completion of the punishment period (4 years punishment period + 5 years = total 9 years). The maximum age limit for the examination is 40 years, so the applicant got only 4 years to appear. Thus, this punishment destroys his entire career. Further, it is in complete violation of the provisions of the Indian Postal Manual. Hence, the applicant has filed this O.A.
4. On notice, Respondents have appeared through their Counsel and filed their reply statement.
i. According to the respondents, it was noticed that several new accounts were pending for opening at the Pullampet SO. Enquiries made through the IP, Rajampet Sub-Division, revealed that nearly 265 Account opening forms were pending with the SPM, Pullampet SO. SB Closures forms were also pending without processing and new RPLI proposals remained without indexing. Hence, the applicant was kept under suspension w.e.f. 21.10.2016 F/N, vide SPO's, Cuddapah/R-4, memo No. B/695, dated 19.10.2016, and Rule-14 charge sheet was issued, vide Memo No. B/695, dt.24.11.2016, of SPO's, Cuddapah.
ii. The applicant preferred an appeal to the DPS, Kurnool/R-3 for revocation of suspension. The same was referred by the DPS to the Review Committee, and as per the proceedings of the Review Committee, his suspension was revoked on 05.01.2017 F/N. Rule-14 Inquiry against the applicant commenced on 29.12.2016 and concluded on 21.04.2017. In the meanwhile, the applicant filed a bias Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= APALLI NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d17 9209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8 SANDHY ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 18:04:17+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA.No.1118/2017 petition, seeking change of the Inquiry Officer(IO, for short), which was rejected by the Disciplinary Authority(D.A., for short), as well as by the Appellate Authority(A.A.). The IO submitted his Inquiry Report, dated 12.05.2017, to the Disciplinary Authority(DA) and the same was sent to the Charged Official(CO, for short), for his representation, which was received on 30.05.2017. It was noted that there was an abnormal delay in opening of the new accounts. The applicant was awarded the punishment of Reduction of pay by two stages and stoppage of increments of pay during the period of reduction, without postponing his future increments of pay, simultaneously treating the period of suspension as such for all purposes, vide memo No. B/695, dated 27.06.2017. iii. The applicant/C.O. submitted his Appeal to the Director of Postal Services, O/o. PMG, Kurnool/R-3, which was rejected. It was held that:
"the contention that there were no complaints against him has nothing to do with the charges. While complaints can be an indicator of deficiency in an office, they are not the lone indicator. From the appeal itself, it could be seen that there had been abnormal delay on the part of the appellant. The charge levelled against the appellant has been proved by oral and documentary evidence. Reasonable opportunity is found to have been given to the appellant to defend his case. The penalty imposed by the Disc. Authority is found to be commensurate with the charges framed".
Thereafter, the applicant filed O.A.No.1118/2017. iv. According to the respondents, it is a fact that 15 Branch Offices are attached to the Pullampet Sub-Post Office. The applicant had complained against the Inspector-Posts and requested for transfer from Pullampet SO, vide his representation, dated 19.02.2016. It is Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= APALLI NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d17 9209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8 SANDHY ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 18:04:17+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA.No.1118/2017 submitted that the applicant had kept cash to the tune of Rs. 3.20 lakh, on 19.02.2016, by remitting Rs. 40000/- only, to the HO. The Inspector-Posts had reported that the applicant was allowing outsiders in the office work. The applicant had been deputed for ADP training at the PTC, Mysore, for 15 days. He reported to the SPO's, Cuddapah, the misbehaviour of Sri D. Chandramouli, GDSMD, Pullampet, with his daughter. Enquiries were made by the ASPOs, Cuddapah, and, accordingly, the Inspector-Posts, Rajampet Sub-Division, who is the Disciplinary Authority for the GDSMD, Pullampet SO, took action against Sri D.Chandramouli with the punishment of Removal from Service.
v. It is further submitted that the argument that the papers were mixed up because of civil works in the office, is not a valid excuse. The version of the SPM is an after-thought to side-track the issue. It is denied that the Superintendent had placed him under suspension without any strong allegations. There were ample reasons, such as, several pending SB Accounts for opening as well as delay in settlement of claims, to keep the applicant under suspension. Though it was not a case of fraud, the action of the applicant would have caused a lot of resentment among the customers of the post office. If no action is taken to curb such practices, the very purpose of public service and the goal of the organization will be defeated. Moreover, the delay in opening of accounts may lead to misuse of money already collected by the BPMs. Hence, the applicant was punished under Rule-14. Though the applicant had been away on account of ADP training at Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= APALLI NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d17 9209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8 SANDHY ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 18:04:17+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA.No.1118/2017 the PTC, Mysore, from 01.08.2016 to 15.08.2016, the accounts mentioned in the charge sheet and most of the documents mentioned in the Annexure were received by the applicant after his reporting for duty following the training period, but the same were kept pending till 17.10.2016 by him. Even though, there was no complaint, the organisation could not wait for a complaint for ensuring settlement of accounts, keeping aside its responsibility. Respondents argue that all the factors were duly considered before proceeding to initiate disciplinary action against the applicant/C.O. The allegations against the IP were baseless.
vi. It is further submitted that the applicant was one of the System Administrators earlier in the Division and he used to look into the problems of other offices. If he had any difficulty and lack of working knowledge, he could have brought it to the notice of the Divisional Head or the SDH. Respondents have prayed that this Tribunal may dismiss the O.A as being devoid of merits.
5. The Applicant has filed a rejoinder to the Reply Statement, mostly reiterating his earlier points in the OA and stated that -
i. He has talked about the sudden visit of the I.P. to his Sub Post Office on 17.10.2016. He has recounted his complaints sent against him on 19.02.2016 regarding harassment, on 14.09.2016 regarding his support to Sri D. Chandra Mouli, GDSMD, who had misbehaved with his daughter and enjoyed the support of the IP, Sri D. Ahammad Hussain. On 17.09.2016, he again complained, seeking action against Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= APALLI NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d17 9209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8 SANDHY ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 18:04:17+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 OA.No.1118/2017 the GDSMD and the I.P. His plea is that the IP was totally biased and had deliberately submitted a false report against him. ii. He has also stated that, as per his request, Respondent No.4 had obtained original documents from the Rajampet HO which were seen and signed by him during the enquiry. His contention is that, had the concerned authority (R-4) seen the original documents earlier, as per Rule 69 of the Postal Manual, Vol.III, there would have been no need for issue of the charge memo against him. Even though, prior perusal of original records is mandatory, it was not done, in his case. iii. He has also rebutted the remarks of R-4 that the applicant had not reported dislocation of work at the P.O. on account of the civil works. According to the applicant, when the same official had visited his PO on 13.08.2016 and observed the situation there, he could not blame him for not reporting the situation at the Pullampet PO. iv. He has also argued that, if other employees, responsible for similar lapses, are not punished, action against him will be violation of Article 14 and will be an instance discrimination against him.
v. He has denied having knowledge of Finacle and stated that the difficulty in this regard had been already intimated to higher-ups through his e-mail. He has also alleged that no extra support was given, despite the heavy workload at his Sub Post Office. He has annexed a copy of his e-mail, dated 18.06.2016, which is also marked to the Inspector, Posts, Rajampet. Abnormal increase in workload had also been reported to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuddapah/R-4 vide detailed letter, dt. 16.04.2018, through which it was also requested Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= APALLI NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d17 9209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8 SANDHY ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 18:04:17+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 OA.No.1118/2017 to sanction additional staff. Details of 200 Account Opening Forms have been enclosed vide Annexure A-VII.
6. In response to the rejoinder of the Applicant, Respondents have filed Additional Reply Statement. The allegation of false report against him by the IP is denied. The IP had issued a charge memo to Sri D. Chandramouli, GDSMD, on the complaint of the applicant that he had misbehaved with his daughter. Sri D. Chandramouli was awarded the punishment of "removal from engagement". Thus, the charge of support from the IP to the GDSMD was also not correct. Visit and report by the IP was the result of the direction of the Superintendent of Post Offices/R-4. As regards the evidence in support of the charges of delay against the applicant, it has been examined, in detail, in the course of the enquiry. Delay and negligence on his part would frustrate the drive for opening new accounts. It is also argued that the fault of others cannot justify his own shortcomings.
7. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
8. It is well known that the role of Courts and Tribunals in judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is rather limited. With reference to the challenge to the quantum of punishment imposed on the applicant, the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court lay down the applicable law. In B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, the Court held as follows:
"18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= APALLI NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d17 9209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8 SANDHY ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 18:04:17+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 OA.No.1118/2017 appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases. impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."
In the case of Director General, RPF vs. Ch.Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, it is reiterated that the High Court should ordinarily not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Disciplinary Authority in the matter of imposition of punishment by stating that:
"Normally, the punishment imposed by disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by high court or tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly of shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant factors including nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of and discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment in which the concerned delinquent person works."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State Bank of India vs. Samarendra Kishre Endow [1994 (1) SLR 516], also held that a High Court or Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the concerned authority. In this judgment, the Supreme Court of India has observed as under:
"On the question of punishment, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the punishment awarded is excessive and that lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice. It may be noticed that the imposition of appropriate punishment is within the discretion and judgment of the Disciplinary Authority. It may be open to the appellate authority to interfere with it but not to the High Court or to the Administrative Tribunal for the reason that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is similar to the powers of the High Court under Article 226. The power under Article 226 is one of judicial review. It is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made. In other words the power of judicial review is meant 'to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide for itself, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court'."
9. We do not find the proceedings in this case to be flawed. The documents, in original, have been shown to the applicant/Charged Official, as per his own submission, in the course of the enquiry proceedings. It is true that mistakes Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= APALLI NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d17 9209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8 SANDHY ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 18:04:17+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 17 OA.No.1118/2017 of others cannot justify lapses on the part of the applicant. It is also his grouse that he was suspended in a hurry, simply on the basis of his own examination by the same IP against whom he had been complaining. His plea is that Pullampet SO was the only 'C' Class office having 15 BO's in Cuddapah and, hence, he was overworked. In his four years as SPM, Pullampet SO, the applicant claims to have availed leave on only two days and that, too, as his daughter had expired. He kept working regularly, despite the ongoing civil works at the office because of which all records had got mixed up in the cramped space.
10. It is found that the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authorities have covered most of the grounds urged by the applicant/CO in their orders. In the discussion of evidence, the Inquiry Officer has mentioned as follows :
"The reason may be genuine one that he was having heavy workload. But the fact is that he has failed to open the new accounts sent to S.O. by BPMs during the period as alleged in the charge sheet."
"Hence the allegation of charge for these two accounts "failed to settle maturity/prematurity claims of various categories of accounts received from BOs and also across the SO counters on various dates" by C.O. is correct."
(emphasis supplied)
11. At para-4 of the discussion in the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the following observation is significant -
"4. DISCUSSION :
All the records connected to the case were gone through. The lone article of charge is that the said Shri K.Lakshminarayana failed to open the various types of Savings accounts and settle the maturity claims. A reference to S-10 (statement dated 17.10.2016 given by Shri K.Lakshminarayana) the contents of which were confirmed to be true by SW-5 (Shri D.Ahamad Hussain) reveals that there were 265 accounts received from BOs were pending for opening. The fact, that can be derived from the inquiry is that there is no dispute in not opening of accounts pertaining to BOs received at SO. The charged official never tried to deny this, as it is a proven fact. However, he Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= APALLI NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d17 9209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8 SANDHY ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 18:04:17+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 18 OA.No.1118/2017 relies upon non-furnishing of details of accounts pending to be opened. This lacuna will not obviously absolve the official from the fact of non-opening of accounts. Perhaps the IO might have arrived at the same analogy and vide his report he held that the article of charge is proved." (emphasis supplied)
12. It is also mentioned that Shri K.Lakshminarayana should have reported the matter of pendency to the concerned authority and sought assistance, etc., for clearance of the pendency. To this, the applicant has already responded by citing his letter/email regarding the workload and also the visit of the SPO's while the post office was in a pell-mell condition, on account of the ongoing civil works.
13. The Appellate Authority has also examined the grounds in the appeal submitted by the applicant. He has mentioned the plea of the applicant, among the grounds, which reads as follows:
"xv. .....The Inspector, Rajampet failed to find fault with the official who worked as SPM during the enquiry on 17.10.16, though the matter was reported to SPOs. Even after revocation of duty there were 253 account opening forms and 156 closures were kept pending by the substitute SPM and it was brought to the notice of SPOs also, but no action was taken. He worked day and night to roll out office to CBS migration. After migration even if he was not trained in Finacle, he managed the work. He was not on leave during the entire 4 years as SPM, Pullampet S.O. for a single day except 2 days at the time of his daughter's death." (emphasis supplied) He has further stated, while recording his observation, as follows:
"xi. The heavy work in the office is no way related to keep the claims pending for days together / inordinate delay and it cannot be taken shelter."
(emphasis supplied) He has upheld the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
14. There is acknowledgement of the fact, in the report of the Inquiry Officer, that the applicant/charged officer was under pressure of work. Even the Appellate Authority has not denied it. We also find that the applicant had duly reported need for additional manpower to R4. While noting the pressure Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= APALLI NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d17 9209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8 SANDHY ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 18:04:17+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 19 OA.No.1118/2017 of work, we are unable to ignore the submissions of the applicant that he had lost his 9 year old daughter and, even in the case of her acute sickness leading to death, he had been on leave for only two days. He was staying with his family at the quarters attached to the Post Office and it is a matter of record that, during his absence, when he was on official tour on account of training at Mysore, one GDSMD, D.Chandramouli, was involved in sexual harassment of his 11 year old daughter, which he reported on 16.08.2016, after returning from Mysore. It is also a fact that despite his complaint against the IP, Sri D.Ahamad Hussain, it was the same IP who issued orders removing D.Chandramouli, GDSMD, from service.
15. All in all, the atmosphere must have been quite excruciating for the applicant, on account of personal tragedy in the loss of one daughter, sexual harassment of another daughter and the obvious pressure of work. We do not intend to interfere with the judgment of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. However, we feel a comprehensive view of the ground realities vis-a-vis the actual nature of lapses on the part of the applicant needs to be taken in this case. It is admitted by all concerned that it is not a case of fraud nor has the applicant caused loss to the Govt. It is also noted that the applicant has not utilized the opportunity to file revision petition as provided for under the Rules, after rejection of his appeal, vide the impugned order, dt.30.08.2017, which inter alia upheld the other impugned order, dt.27.06.2017, through which penalty was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= APALLI NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d17 9209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8 SANDHY ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 18:04:17+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 20 OA.No.1118/2017
16. In the light of the above discussion, the applicant is permitted to file a revision petition to the competent authority, should he choose to do so, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After receipt of the revision petition, the competent authority shall consider the same, duly taking note of the facts discussed herein above along with the observations made by us and dispose of the same within a period of two months, thereafter, through reasoned and detailed order.
17. The OA is disposed of in the above terms. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Dr.Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
29.01.2026
/Ram/ps/
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF
PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=
500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= APALLI NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d17 9209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8 SANDHY ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 18:04:17+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0