Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
R Rajashekar vs Dept Of Posts on 13 February, 2025
OA 21/0720/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH :: HYDERABAD
OA No.021/00720 of 2019
Reserved on: 08.01.2025
Pronounced on: 13.02.2025
CORAM :
HON'BLE Dr. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE Ms. SHALINI MISRA, MEMBER (A)
R. Rajasekhar, S/o. Haribabu,
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Postal Assistant,
Inter Check Organization Savings Bank,
O/o. Postmaster General, Hyderabad Region,
Dak Sadan, Hyderabad - 500 001.
....Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. B. Pavan Kumar)
Vs
1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Posts - India,
M/o. Communications and IT,
Dak Sadan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Telangana Circle, Hyderabad -1.
3. The Postmaster General,
Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad -1.
4. The Director of Postal Services,
O/o. Postmaster General,
Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad -1.
5. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda -1.
6. The Senior Accounts Officer,
Internal Check Organization (SB),
O/o. The Postmaster General,
Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad -1.
7. The Accounts Officer,
Internal Check Organization (SB),
O/o. The Postmaster General,
Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad -1.
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao, Sr. PC for CG)
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
VISWESWARA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST
FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=
0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=
d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@
gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:16:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
1
OA 21/0720/2019
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Smt.Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member (J)) The applicants filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"...that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the 7th respondent Proceedings in Lr. No. PMG(H)/ICO- SB/Disc Case/RR/2019/1289 dated 14.05.2019 imposing a penalty of recovery of Rs.7,28,295/- from the pay and allowances of the applicant without being a competent authority to impose such penalty in the guise of contributory negligence and the 4th respondent proceedings as appellate authority in Memo No. PMG(H)/ST/21-3/24/RR/RO Hyd/2019 dated 24.07.2019 rejecting the appeal made by the applicant without considering the same and quash and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Rules on the subject matter and principles of natural justice, in the interest of justice.. ..."
2. The facts of the case, briefly, as stated by the applicant, are that he initially joined as Postal Assistant at Markapur Head Post office on 22.07.2002. He was subsequently transferred to Kadapa HO in the year 2006; to Medak HO in the year 2010; to Bhongiri HO in the year 2014 and he is presently working as Postal Assistant in the office of the PMG from 04.01.2016. While he was working as Postal Assistant at Bhongiri HO, he was issued with a charge memo under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules on 09.09.2015 stating that one Sri T. Srinivas who worked as SPM, Machavaram during the period from 01.06.2010 to 31.05.2011 committed frauds in SB Accounts to the tune of Rs.90,53,900/- by forging the signatures of depositors on the application for withdrawl and also on the warrant of payment. It was further stated that during the above mentioned dates one Sri G. Shyam Prasad and Smt. P.Annapaurna worked as SB Ledger Clerks, Medak HO and Sri U.Ch. Kondaiah, Sri M. Siddeshwar and Sri A. Ramulu worked as DPM (SB), Medak HO have failed to compare the signatures of the depositors on the application for withdrawl and warrant of payment with the specimen in the application form/ SS card and also failed to sign below the signatures of the depositors on the application for withdrawl and warrant of payment in token of having compared the Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:16:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 2 OA 21/0720/2019 signature of the depositor. Thus, the applicant stated that, there is no role at all on his part in the 1st element of charge and the lapse alleged is that, he being incharge PA SBCO, Medak HO failed to point out the above lapses on the part of the above SBLC and DPM (SAB) Medak HO and raise the objection. Article 2 also alleges that one Sri T. Srinivas, SPM, Machavaram SO fraudulently charged withdrawals for Rs.13,50,308/- in certain NREGS Accounts and it is alleged that the applicant failed to ensure the ledger posting in respect of the above mentioned amount and thereby, facilitated the fraud being committed to the tune of Rs.13,50,308/- by the said Sri T. Srinivas.
To the said charge memo, the applicant submitted his representation denying the charges by stating that the same are vague and not specific and that the disciplinary authority failed to establish the reasonable nexus to state that the applicant facilitated the said fraud. The respondents have appointed one Sri M. Santosh Kumar Narahari as Inquiry officer to inquire into the charges on 19.04.2016. The inquiry officer, after conducting the inquiry, submitted his report on 31.07.2018 and the same was furnished to the applicant. The applicant submitted his representation against the IO‟s report on 09.10.2018. Thereafter, the impugned proceedings dt. 14.05.2019 were issued by the disciplinary authority imposing a penalty of recovery of amount of Rs.7,23,295/- to be recovered from the pay and allowances of the applicant from the month of May 2019. Being aggrieved, the applicant submitted his appeal to the appellate authority on 21.05.2019, which was rejected on 24.07.2019.
3. It is the contention of the applicant that the entire proceedings have been conducted in violation of statutory rules on the subject and also in violation of basic principles of evidence. Though under Rule 23 an order can be appealed to the appellate authority within 45 days and though the applicant preferred appeal on Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:16:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 3 OA 21/0720/2019 21.05.2019 against the penalty order dt. 14.05.2019 passed by an incompetent authority, recovery from his pay and allowances commenced from the month of May 2019. In those circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal vide OA No. 489/2019 and the same was disposed of vide order dt. 29.05.2019 staying the recovery till disposal of the appeal. The appellate authority without considering the points and grounds raised by the appeal rejected the appeal vide order dt.24.07.2019.
4. At the time of admission, this Tribunal, vide order dt. 14.08.2019, granted interim stay of the recovery pursuant to the impugned orders.
5. After notices, the respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed a detailed reply statement. It is stated by the respondents that the during the period from 07.05.2010 to 22.02.2014, the applicant worked as Incharge PA, SBCO, Medak HO and during the said period, he was identified as subsidiary offender in a fraud that took place at Machavaram Sub Post Office (SO) under Medak HO to the tune of Rs.90,53,900/- in Savings Bank Accounts in respect of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (for short NREGS) Accounts for his lapse in not pointing out the lapses on the part of Savings Bank ledger clerks (for short SBLCs) and Deputy Postmaster, Medak HO which facilitated the fraud by Sub Postmaster, Machavaram SO. He was issued charge memo under Ruler 16(1)(b) of CCS (CCA) Rules on 09.09.2015 while he was working as PA, SBCO, Bhongir HO under the control of SPOs, Nalgonda Division, who is the disciplinary authority competent to impose minor penalties. The applicant did not submit his defence to the charge memo, but requested for supply of documents listed in the Annexure III of Charge Memo vide his representation dt. 21.09.2015. The 5th respondent rejected his request and stated that the same will be supplied during the course of inquiry, vide letter dt. 08.12.2015. One Sri J. Srinivas, Assistant Superintendent Posts, Bhongir VISWESWARA Sub Division, Bhongir was appointed as Inquiry officer and Sri Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:16:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 4 OA 21/0720/2019 Mohammed Nayeemuddin, Inspector Posts, Nalgonda North Sub Division, Nalgonda was appointed as Presenting Officer on 08.12.2015. However, no inquiry sittings were held. Meanwhile, the applicant was transferred as PA, ICO (SB) in the office of the 3rd respondent and the applicant joined on 04.01.2016. Therefore, the entire records of the case were transferred by SPOs, Nalgonda Division to the Senior Accounts Officer, Internal Control Organization (Savings Bank & Central Pairing Unit) [in short Sr. AO, ICO (SB & CPU) and consequent to the transfer of the applicant, the 6th respondent is the disciplinary authority for issue of minor penalties. Sri N. Santosh Kumar Narahari, Assistant Superintendent of Posts and Sri H. Sharath Kumar, Inspector of Posts in the office of the 3rd respondent were re- appointed as Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer respectively by the 6 th respondent vide Memo dt. 19.04.2016. The Inquiry Officer commenced the inquiry sittings on 27.05.2016 and concluded the same on 11.11.2017 and report was submitted by the IO on 31.07.2018 holding all the Articles of Charge as proved. Copy of the IO report was forwarded to the applicant by the 7 th respondent vide letter dt. 17.09.2019 giving him 15 days time to submit his representation. The applicant requested for extension of another 10 days time to submit his defence representation, which was granted and the applicant submitted his defence representation on 09.10.2018. The case was finalized by the 7 th respondent, under whose control the applicant is working and who is also the disciplinary authority for imposing minor penalties vide Memo dt. 14.05.2019, by imposing the penalty of "recovery of Rs.7,28,925/- from the pay and allowances to be recovered in 72 installments @ Rs.10,000/- per month and the remaining amount of Rs.8,295/- in 73rd installment commencing from the month of May 2019".
6. It is further stated that the first installament of Rs.10,000/- was recovered from the Pay and allowances of the applicant in the month of May 2019. The applicant preferred appeal to the 4th respondent on 21.05.2019. Aggrieved by the Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:16:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 5 OA 21/0720/2019 commencement of the recovery pending the disposal of the appeal, the applicant filed OA No. 489/2019 before this Tribunal and the same was disposed of on 29.05.2019 staying the recovery till the disposal of the appeal and the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within a period of four weeks. As directed, the recovery was stopped and the appeal was considered and rejected by the appellate authority vide order dt. 24.07.2019. Aggrieved by the rejection of his appeal, the applicant filed the present OA. It is the contention of the respondents that the applicant has not exhausted the departmental channels of revision petition before approaching this Tribunal and therefore, the OA is liable to be dismissed on the said ground.
7. The respondents state that the SBCO is a unit which performs the role of auditing and it is the controlling unit for all types of transactions happening in various Savings Bank Schemes, in all post offices under its control. The applicant being Incharge, SBCO, Medak HO, his primary responsibility to verify that the due process and procedures as laid down in rules are followed in all the transactions relating to Savings Bank by the Sub Postmasters in account with Medak HO and also by the SB Staff and Postmaster of Medak HO. He has to verify all the vouchers with reference to the List of Transactions and to ensure that all the checks and verifications are done by the concerned officials at SO and HO when the vouchers are handed over to SBCO for final check/ scrutiny. But the applicant failed to do so, which facilitated a huge fraud to the tune of Rs.90,53,900/- committed by Sri T. Srinivas, who worked as SPM Machavaram SO during the period from 01.06.2010 to 31.05.2011. The respondents denied the contention of the applicant that the charges levelled against him are non-specific, ambiguous and stated that the definite articles of charges were framed in the charge memo and the lapses and the rules violated by him were also clearly mentioned in the charge Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:16:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 6 OA 21/0720/2019 memo. Detailed inquiry was held and the applicant was given every reasonable opportunity to defend against the charges levelled against him. In fact, the applicant did not seek an inquiry and it is the disciplinary authority decided to have an inquiry in order to give reasonable opportunity to the applicant, though he did not submit any representation denying the charges levelled against him.
8. It is further stated by the respondents that the impugned proceedings were issued by the Accounts Officer, O/o. PMG i.e. the 7 th respondent, who is the competent and the disciplinary authority to the applicant for issue of minor penalties. The applicant was in the cadre of PA, SBCO and as per the schedule of appointing/ disciplinary/ appellate authorities vide Postal Directorate letter dt. 27.08.1990 (Annexure R-I), for Clerical Grade, Group „C‟ officials of SBCO, Head of the Division is competent to impose penalties (i) to (iv) of CCS (CCA) Rules. Initially, the charge memo under Rule 16(1)(b) was issued by the 5 th respondent on 09.09.2015 on which date he was working as PA, SBCO, Bhongir HO of Nalgonda Division. Later, the applicant was transferred as PA, ICO (SB) in the office of the 3rd respondent on 04.01.2016. For clerical grade, Group C officials working in Internal Check Organization, the Accounts Officer is competent to impose minor penalties enlisted in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules. Thus, the Accounts Officer, O/o. PMG has issued the proceedings imposing the penalty of recovery. It is further stated that the amount of recovery awarded as punishment was based on the total fraud amount and also based on the contributory negligence of the applicant. The negligence on the part of the applicant in not pointing out the lapse on the part of the SB LCs and Dy. Postmaster, Medak HO, who failed to verify the signature of the depositor on the application for withdrawal and on the warrant of payment side which were actually forged ones, contributed to the fraud, which went unnoticed and there is a proven loss to the Government to the tune of Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:16:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 7 OA 21/0720/2019 Rs.90,53,900/-. Further, the negligence on the part of the applicant in not ensuring the ledger postings in respect of NREGS accounts of Machavaram SO at Medak HO through the then SBLC and get the signature of SBLC on the LOT in token of having posted the ledger postings, contributed to the fraudulent withdrawals taking place to a tune of Rs.13,50,308/-, which is a loss to the exchequer. There is no restriction that the penalty imposed in proceedings of a disciplinary case should be stayed till the period of appeal is over. The appellate authority after considering the facts of the case in detail and examining the records rejected the appeal.
9. The respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in UT of Dadra & Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M. Lad, (2010) 5 SCC; Director General, RPF v. Ch. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331; State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow [1994 (1) SLR 516] in regard to the limited scope of judicial review of this Tribunal in the disciplinary matters. Therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the OA. The respondents also filed vacate stay petition.
10. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the pleadings and material on record.
11. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that in respect of the alleged transactions, there is abnormal delay in issuance of the charge memo and holding the inquiry against the applicant. In the charge memo, the charges are not specific and ambiguous and when the Article I is not directly connected with the applicant, the other charges are also vague in nature. The charge memo under Rule 16 (1) and the inquiry thereto are in violation of the statutory rules and the basic principles of evidence. Four prosecution witnesses in the matter against the applicant are co-accused along with Sri T. Srinivas, SPM, Machavaram in the criminal/ departmental proceedings and they cannot be used as Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:16:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 8 OA 21/0720/2019 witnesses against the applicant. When the applicant had objected to the minor penalty proceedings in the circumstances, major penalty charge memo has to be issued by the competent authority. In the entire inquiry proceedings till imposition of penalty, the respondents have violated the procedure in respect of the conduct of the inquiry. The Rules laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath & Others have not been followed. The authority who has issued the charge memo is not the competent authority and the applicant has raised the objection as to how the amount of recovery under the penalty has been fixed against the applicant. The said penalty has been executed even before the applicant could exercise the option of appeal. Therefore, the applicant has approached this Tribunal after recovery of first instalment and this Tribunal has stayed the further recovery.
12. The respondents in their reply statement stated that during the period from 07.05.2010 to 22.02.2014, the applicant worked as Incharge PA, SBCO, Medak HO and during the said period, he was identified as subsidiary offender in a fraud that took place at Machavaram Sub Post Office (SO) under Medak HO to the tune of Rs.90,53,900/- in Savings Bank Accounts in respect of NREGS Accounts for his lapse in not pointing out the lapses on the part of SBLCs and Deputy Postmaster, Medak HO which facilitated the fraud by Sub Postmaster, Machavaram SO. He was issued charge memo under Ruler 16(1)(b) of CCS (CCA) Rules on 09.09.2015 while he was working as PA, SBCO, Bhongir HO under the control of SPOs, Nalgonda Division, who is the disciplinary authority competent to impose minor penalties. The applicant did not submit his defence to the charge memo, but requested for supply of documents listed in the Annexure III of Charge Memo vide his representation dt. 21.09.2015. The 5th respondent rejected his request and stated that the same will be supplied during the course of inquiry, vide letter dt. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:16:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 9 OA 21/0720/2019 08.12.2015. Inquiry officer and Presenting Officer were appointed on 08.12.2015, but no inquiry sittings were held. Meanwhile, the applicant was transferred as PA, ICO (SB) in the office of the 3rd respondent, where he joined on 04.01.2016 and consequent to the transfer of the applicant, the 6th respondent became the disciplinary authority for issue of minor penalties. Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed by the 6th respondent vide Memo dt. 19.04.2016 and the inquiry commenced on 27.05.2016 and concluded on 11.11.2017 and report was submitted by the IO on 31.07.2018 holding all the Articles of Charge as proved.
Copy of the IO report was forwarded to the applicant by the 7 th respondent on 17.09.2019 to which, the applicant submitted his defence representation on 09.10.2018. The case was finalized by the 7th respondent, under whose control the applicant is working and who is also the disciplinary authority for imposing minor penalties vide Memo dt. 14.05.2019 by imposing the penalty of "recovery of Rs.7,28,925/- from the pay and allowances to be recovered in 72 installments @ Rs.10,000/- per month and the remaining amount of Rs.8,295/- in 73rd installment commencing from the month of May 2019". The appeal of the applicant was considered and rejected by the appellate authority vide order dt. 24.07.2019.
13. The respondents also stated that the SBCO is a unit which performs the role of auditing and it is the controlling unit for all types of transactions that took place in various Savings Bank Schemes, in all post offices under its control. The applicant being Incharge, SBCO, Medak HO, his primary responsibility is to verify that the due process and procedures as laid down in rules are followed in all the transactions relating to Savings Bank by the Sub Postmasters in account with Medak HO and also by the SB Staff and Postmaster of Medak HO. But the applicant failed to do so, which resulted in a huge fraud to the tune of Rs.90,53,900/-. It is the case of the respondents that a detailed inquiry was held Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:16:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 10 OA 21/0720/2019 and the applicant was given every reasonable opportunity to defend against the charges levelled against him. In fact, the applicant did not seek an inquiry and it is the disciplinary authority decided to have an inquiry for giving reasonable opportunity to the applicant, though he did not submit any representation denying the charges levelled against him. Thus, principles of natural justice have been followed and the applicant was given reasonable opportunity to defend his case.
14. With regard to the competency of the authority, which issued the impugned penalty, the respondents stated that the Accounts Officer, O/o. PMG i.e. the 7th respondent is the competent and the disciplinary authority for imposing minor penalties on the applicant. The applicant was in the cadre of PA, SBCO and as per the schedule of appointing/ disciplinary/ appellate authorities vide Postal Directorate letter dt. 27.08.1990 (Annexure R-I), for Clerical Grade, Group „C‟ officials of SBCO, Head of the Division is competent to impose penalties (i) to (iv) of Rule. For clerical grade, Group C officials working in Internal Check Organization, the Accounts Officer is competent to impose minor penalties enlisted in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules. It is further stated that the amount of recovery awarded as punishment was based on the total fraud amount and also based on the contributory negligence of the applicant. Further, the negligence on the part of the applicant in not ensuring the ledger postings in respect of NREGS accounts of Machavaram SO at Medak HO through the then SBLC and get the signature of SBLC on the LOT in token of having posted the ledger postings, contributed to the fraudulent withdrawals taking place to a tune of Rs.13,50,308/-, which is a loss to the exchequer. The applicant has also not filed any rejoinder refuting the contentions of the respondents in their reply statement.
15. It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any defence representation Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= toRAOthe charge memo. However, he has been given every reasonable opportunity to d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:16:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 11 OA 21/0720/2019 participate in the inquiry. The applicant has failed to discharge the duties assigned to him during the relevant period and he himself has not even disputed the charges by submitting any defence statement. In regard to the allegation of the applicant that incompetent authority has issued the charge memo, it is also to be noted that the respondent No.5, who is a competent authority being disciplinary authority issued a minor penalty charge memo to the applicant, who was in the cadre of PA and as per the schedule of appointing/ disciplinary/ appellate authorities vide Postal Directorate letter dt. 27.08.1990 (Annexure R-I), for Clerical Grade, Group „C‟ officials of SBCO, Head of the Division is competent to impose penalties (i) to (iv) of Rule. The charge memo under Rule 16(1)(b) was issued by the 5th respondent on 09.09.2015 on which date he was working as PA, SBCO, Bhongir HO of Nalgonda Division. Later, the applicant was transferred as PA, ICO (SB) in the office of the 3rd respondent on 04.01.2016. For clerical grade, Group C officials working in Internal Check Organization, the Accounts Officer is competent to impose minor penalties enlisted in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules. Thus, the Accounts Officer, O/o. PMG has issued the proceedings imposing the penalty of recovery. It is also to be noted that the amount of recovery awarded was based on the contributory negligence from out of the total fraud that was committed.
16. It is also to be noted that the applicant has not submitted any rule position to support his contention that pending the appeal, recovery cannot be initiated or executed. It is also to be noted that due to negligence on the part of the respondents in pointing out the lapse on the part of the SBLC and Dy. Postmaster, Medak HO, who failed to verify the signature of the depositor on the application for withdrawl and on the warrant of payment side which were actually forged, thereby contributed to the fraud to the tune of Rs.90,53,900/-. It is also to be noted Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:16:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 12 OA 21/0720/2019 that there was negligence on the part on the applicant in not ensuring the ledger postings in respect of NREGS ACCOUNTS OF Machavaram SO at Medak HO through the then SBLC and get the signature of SBLC on the LOT in token of having posted the ledger postings, which also contributed to the fraudulent withdrawals taking place to a tune of Rs.13,50,308/-.
17. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UT of Dadra & Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M. Lad, (2010) 5 SCC, the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited and the relevant observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court are as under:
"8. The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters has come up for considera- tion before this Court time and again. It is worthwhile to refer to some of these de- cisions. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others3 this Court held:
"18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the discipli- nary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding au- thorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to main- tain 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 ap- pellate 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".
Further, in Director General, RPF v. Ch. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as under:
"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."Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:16:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 13 OA 21/0720/2019
18. As the applicant did not deny the fact that he was working in the said post during the relevant period with the above mentioned duties and he failed to discharge his duties, a thorough inquiry was conducted, wherein the charges are held proved. Thus, the contributory negligence is proved and he is held responsible for the pecuniary loss caused to the Government and the Respondents have fixed the amount of loss caused due to contributory negligence on the part of the applicant out of the total amount of fraud. In fact, when the applicant failed to discharge his duties as per the rules, which facilitated a huge fraud, we are of the view that the respondents have shown leniency in imposing the minor penalty i.e. recovery of the pecuniary loss.
19. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of recovery. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed being devoid of merit. Interim order is vacated and MA is accordingly disposed.
20. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Shalini Misra) (Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Member (A) Member(J)
/evr/
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
VISWESWARA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:16:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 14