Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Kamaljeet Chaudhary vs Post Hp Circle on 3 December, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
CIRCUIT BENCH SHIMLA
O.A. No. 63/1169/2023
Chandigarh, this the 3rd day of December, 2025
Reserved on: 25.09.2025.
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
Kamaljeet Chaudhary S/o Sh. Karam Chand Chaudhary, Aged 44
years, R/o Block C-12, Flat No.-5, HIMUDA Colony, Near, Harihar
Mandir, Vikas Nagar, Kusumpati, Shimla-9, 171009.
...Applicant
(BY ADVOCATE: S.D. GILL)
VERSUS
1. Union Of India Through secretary to the Govt. Of India, Ministry of
communication, department of Post New Delhi - 110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Himachal Pradesh Circle, SDA Complex,
Kusumpati, Shimla 171009. H.P.
3. Director, Postal Services (STA) H.P. Circle Shimla 171009.
4. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Shimla Division, Shimla, H.P..
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: SUBH MAHAJAN)
ORDER
Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):
1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of instant O.A, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following relief:
"A) That the impugned Annexure A-3 & Annexure A-10 along with other orders passed in continuation of the same order may kindly be quashed and set aside. B) That the respondent may kindly be restrained to pass such an illegal order and the entire record regarding the imposing penalty and its implementation may kindly be called for, for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal. C) That the direction to the respondent May kindly be issued to refund the amount to the applicant which is already deducted till day under the garb of Annexure A-5 & A-3.
D) That the entire record pertaining to the case may kindly be called for, for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
E) That the present Original Application may kindly be allowed with the costs."
BHANU PARTAP 2025.12.04 17:57:31+05'30' 2
2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are that the applicant is presently working as Sub Post Master in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Shimla Division, Himachal Pradesh. He joined the Postal Department in the year 2006 and has since served at various stations including Chopal (May 2006), GPO Shimla (June 2009), Kusumpati (April 2013), Ghanahatti (September 2018) and was lastly transferred to Junga in November 2021, where he continues to be posted.
3. The applicant submitted that in December 2022, the applicant had applied for casual and restricted holiday leave from 19.12.2022 to 24.12.2022 for visiting his ailing relative at his native place.
However, the said leave was not sanctioned. Subsequently, upon receiving information about the death of his relative on 27.12.2022, the applicant again requested for short leave around 10:12 AM to attend the funeral. He was informed that another employee would soon arrive to take charge, but no such reliever reached Junga Post Office till 1:55 PM. The applicant, after briefing the GDS Mail Deliverer, left for his native place under compelling circumstances.
4. Respondent No. 4 issued a memorandum (Annexure A-1) to the applicant which was replied to by the applicant vide reply dated 25.03.2023 (Annexure A-2) but subsequently respondents imposed a penalty (Annexure A-3).
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred a statutory appeal (Annexure A-4) before the Respondent No. 3, the Appellate Authority. However, while the appeal was pending adjudication, Respondent No. 4 issued a communication dated 04.05.2023 (Annexure A-5) directing implementation of the penalty order..
BHANU PARTAP 2025.12.04 17:57:31+05'30' 3
6. It is further contended that Respondent No. 4 issued letter dated 17.07.2023, implementing reduction of pay by one stage, from ₹45,400/- to ₹44,100/- in the pay matrix, for a period of three years w.e.f. 04.05.2023. The pay slip is enclosed as Annexure A-7.
7. The applicant thereafter served a legal notice dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure A-8) to the respondents. However, the respondents did not respond. Consequently, the applicant was constrained to approach this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 915/HP/2023, which came up for hearing on 14.09.2023. Though the applicant's counsel sought permission to withdraw the O.A., this Tribunal graciously directed Respondent No. 3 to decide the statutory appeal expeditiously, vide order dated 14.09.2023(Annexure A-9).
8. Pursuant thereto, the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 3) passed an order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure A-10), decided the appeal, upholding the order of the disciplinary authority. The said order observed that the applicant's act of leaving the post office by handing over charge to a GDS Mail Deliverer (GDS MD) was in violation of service rules, as the GDS personnel are not competent to hold charge of Sub Post Offices.
9. The applicant submits that the said appellate order is arbitrary and unsustainable, as in past instances, the authorities themselves had permitted temporary handover of charge to GDS staff in emergent situations. Reliance is placed upon an earlier order (Annexure A-11) showing precedent where such delegation had been allowed. Thus, the applicant contends that his action was bona fide and justified by compelling family circumstances.
10. The applicant further alleges malafide intention on the part of Respondent No. 4, who deliberately refused to sanction leave BHANU PARTAP 2025.12.04 17:57:31+05'30' 4 despite being aware of the family emergency and further delayed sending a reliever. It is pointed out that the official shown as reliever was himself on leave till 27.12.2022.
11. The applicant asserts that he had duly informed the authorities of his departure, acted responsibly, and did not cause any administrative loss. Therefore, punishment of reduction in pay by one stage for three years is wholly unjustified.
12. The respondents filed written statement wherein they have opposed the Original Application and submitted that the same is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the applicant, while working as Sub-Postmaster (LSG), Junga Sub Office, was found absent from duty on 27.12.2022 during the annual inspection conducted by Respondent No. 4. The respondents submit that the applicant had not obtained prior permission or sanctioned leave for that date, and his act amounted to indiscipline and dereliction of duty.
13. It is further submitted that during the said inspection, Respondent No. 4 found that the applicant had left the post office around 12:30 PM, without intimation, leaving behind office cash of ₹37,658.90/- and official stamps, without handing over charge to any official. Since Junga S.O. is a single-handed post office and the responsibility to render all types of Postal services to the general public lies with the Sub Postmaster, such conduct could have led to misappropriation of Government funds. Consequently, an inquiry was ordered by the competent authority, and the Inspector Posts, East Sub-Division, conducted a detailed fact-finding inquiry and submitted Inquiry report date 16.01.2023 (Annexure R-1). The statements of the staff members confirmed that the applicant had BHANU PARTAP 2025.12.04 17:57:31+05'30' 5 left the office on 27th December, 2022 without any prior permission.
14. The respondents submit that the applicant's conduct showed lack of devotion to duty and disregard for the responsibilities attached to the post of Sub-Postmaster. Accordingly, disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 were initiated against him, after due compliance with procedural requirements. It is denied that any of the applicant's rights were violated or that any mala fide was involved in the initiation or conduct of such proceedings.
15. The respondents have further pointed out that the applicant had earlier filed OA No. 063/555/2023 (Annexure R-2), challenging his transfer to Chopal S.O. on the ground that it was punitive and related to the same incident of 27.12.2022. However, the said transfer order was subsequently cancelled by the department vide Memo dated 07.07.2023 (Annexure R-3), and as a result, the earlier OA was dismissed as infructuous by this Tribunal vide order dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure R-4).
16. Rebutting the allegations of the applicant, the respondents have submitted that no short leave was either applied for or sanctioned by the competent authority for 27.12.2022. The applicant's claim that he left the office at 01:55 PM is false; in fact, he had left at around 12:30 PM, as established in the inquiry. It is also submitted that the applicant left behind the cash and stamps of the office without handing over charge, which is a serious lapse in a single-handed office.
17. It is further contended that the disciplinary order dated 04.05.2023 (Annexure A-3) was passed strictly in accordance with the CCS BHANU PARTAP 2025.12.04 17:57:31+05'30' 6 (CCA) Rules, 1965, after due consideration of all records. The respondents deny that any interim relief was sought or granted during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority. In compliance with this Tribunal's earlier order dated 14.09.2023 in OA No. 063/00915/2023, the appeal was duly heard and disposed of by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure A-10), wherein the penalty imposed upon the applicant was confirmed.
18. The respondents have specifically denied the applicant's reliance on the alleged observation that charge could be handed over to a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS). It is submitted that GDS officials are governed by separate rules and are not equivalent to regular Government servants; hence, handing over charge to them would be irregular and impermissible under departmental norms. The respondents submit that the document relied upon by the applicant (Annexure A-11) is merely an inspection observation, not a binding rule.
19. The respondents have vehemently denied the allegations of mala fide, asserting that the leave applied by the applicant for the period 28.12.2022 to 31.12.2022 was duly recommended and sanctioned, but he deliberately absent on 27.12.2022, without authorization. It is submitted that the disciplinary action was taken independently of any litigation pending before this Tribunal, and the penalty order dated 04.05.2023 was passed by the respondents.
20. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the documents placed on record.
21. From the pleadings, it is admitted fact that the applicant while working as Sub Post Master (LSG), Junga Sub Office was found BHANU PARTAP 2025.12.04 17:57:31+05'30' 7 absent from duty on 27.12.2022 during the annual inspection conducted by respondent No.4. The contention of the applicant is that he had applied for CL and RH with effect from 19.12.2022 to 24.12.2022 but the same was not sanctioned. The further contention of the applicant is that after receiving information about the death of his relative on 27.12.2022, the applicant requested for short leave at around 10:12 AM to attend the funeral and he was informed that another employee would soon arrive to take charge, but no such reliever reached Junga Post Office till 1:55 PM and the applicant after briefing the GDS (MD) left for his native place under compelling circumstances.
22. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that during inspection, which was conducted by the respondent No.4, the applicant was found absent from duty on 27.12.2022. The respondents have specifically submitted that the applicant had not obtained prior permission or sanctioned leave for that date and his act amounted to indiscipline and dereliction of duty. The replying respondents have specifically submitted that without intimation, the applicant left office leaving behind office cash of Rs.37,658.90/- and official stamps, without handling over charge to any official. The specific contention of the respondents is that the Junga SO is a single-handed Post Office and the responsibility to render all types of postal services to general public lies with the Sub Postmaster. In the detailed fact finding inquiry report dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure R-1), done by the Inspector Posts, East Sub-Division, it was proved that the applicant had left the office on 27.12.2022, without any prior permission. It is also admitted from BHANU PARTAP 2025.12.04 17:57:31+05'30' 8 the pleadings that the applicant was served with the Charge Memo under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
23. From the averments made by the applicant, it is crystal clear that the applicant has left office with intimation to GDS(MD). On the one hand, the applicant submits that he has left the office at around 1:55 PM and on the other hand, the inspection officer's reply, it was found that the applicant left at around 12:30 PM. Hence, the fact remains that the applicant had left the office in the afternoon on 27.12.2022.
24. From the submissions made by the applicant, it is clear that the applicant had intimated some official and it was replied to the applicant that some reliever will be sent. From the submissions of the applicant, it is also clear that no reliever has come and the applicant intimated the GDS(MD) and left the office. From the reply of the respondents it is crystal clear that no prior permission was granted by the competent authority. However, the applicant was intimated that some reliever will be sent but the same had not been deputed by any authority and the applicant had only intimated the GDS (MD). The specific averments made by the respondents is that the GDS is not responsible for the working of Sub Post Master, in a situation when the said Junga S.O is a single-handed Post Office, particularly the retaining of money lies with the post office.
25. In view of such a position, the responsible duties which are to be done by the Sub Postmaster particularly in a single handed Post Office, such type of conduct is not acceptable from a civil servant, particularly where official matters are to be handled by the Sub Postmaster.
BHANU PARTAP 2025.12.04 17:57:31+05'30' 9
26. The applicant has submitted that as per Annexure A-11, the GDS officials were allowed to do the work of "Mail receipt/delivery of office" and the charge to the GDS can be handed over in peculiar circumstances as has earlier been done by the authorities. The respondents have submitted that the Annexure A-11 is the observation made during inspection and not the departmental rule.
27. In view of such a position, as discussed above, this Tribunal does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the respondents. The O.A is dismissed being devoid of merits.
28. No order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
bp
BHANU PARTAP 2025.12.04 17:57:31+05'30'