Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Shri Remigious Syiem vs Deptt Of Posts on 8 April, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application No. 043/00243/2022
HON'BLE MR RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR SANJIV KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Sri Remigious Syiem
S/o Late N. Nongkhlaw
Sub Postmaster, Iewduh S.O.
Shillong-793002.
...Applicant
-AND-
1. Union of India
Represented by the Secretary
To the Govt. of India
Ministry of Communications & IT
Department of Posts, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Director General (PA-Admn)
Department of Posts, PA Wing
Dak-Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Chief Postmaster General
North East Circle, Secretariat Hills
Shillong, Meghalaya-793001.
4. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices
Meghalaya Division, Shillong-793001.
5. The Director of Postal Services (HQ)
O/O Chief Post Master General
North East Circle, Secretariat Hills
Shillong, Meghalaya-793001.
Respondents
O.A. No/243/2022
PRASANNA Digitally
PRASANNA
signed by
BASUMATARYBASUMATARY
2
Present:
For applicant(s): Shri M. Chanda & Smt. U. Dutta
For respondents: Shri P. Saikia, Addl. CGSC
Date of Hearing: 06.04.2026 Date of Order: 08.04.2026
ORDER
PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):
This O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:
"8.1 Impugned order dated 23.12.2021 (Annexure-A1), so far the expression 'without prejudice to further action' be set aside and quashed.
8.2 Impugned order dated 27.01.2022 (Annexure-A2), so far the expression that "without prejudice to further action" and that "A fresh charge sheet will be issued in due course" be set aside and quashed.
8.3 Impugned chargesheet dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure-A3) be set aside and quashed.
8.4 Impugned penalty order dated 26/27.07.2022 (Annexure-A4) be set aside and quashed.
8.5 The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to refund the recovery made from the salary of the applicant in terms of the penalty order dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure-A6) and 26/27.07.2022 (Annexure-A4).
8.6 Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case.
O.A. No/243/2022 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 3
2. The applicant while working as Postal Assistant Sub Accounts Branch Shillong GPO, a charge sheet dated 06.05.2021 was issued against him proposing to hold an inquiry under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 in respect of a fraud committed by one Shri Chandra Bhal Prasad, then SPM, Neigrihms SO prior to 6 years alleging failure to properly scrutinize the SO daily account and retention of excess cash with other irregularities. Disciplinary proceedings was concluded and the said charge sheet culminated into a penalty of (1) Stoppage of increment for 1 year without cumulative effect and (2) Recovery of Rs. 15000/- per month for 2 years w.e.f. Oct. 2021 by order dated 04.10.2021. Applicant submitted appeal dated 25.10.2021 highlighting various procedural irregularities and illegalities viz. non initiation/institution of charge sheet dated 03.05.2021, delay in issuing charge sheet, non holding of departmental inquiry inspite of the request of the applicant, non availability of evidence and perversity, non consideration of the written statement dated 10.06.2021 by the DA, violation of Rule 11(iii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 stipulating for recovery from the O.A. No/243/2022 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 4 government servant who has caused pecuniary loss, etc. On consideration of the said appeal the Appellate Authority by order dated 23.12.2021 has set aside the penalty order dated 04.10.2021 without prejudice to further action and the Disciplinary Authority by order dated 27.01.2022 has dropped the charge sheet dated 03.05.2021 also without prejudice to further action.
3. However the Disciplinary Authority has again issued fresh second chargesheet dated 06.05.2022 on the same cause of action and same set of charges as earlier. It is stated that such action of the respondents is dehors the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and also the settled position of law as laid down in Lt. Governor, Delhi and others v. HC Narinder Singh reported in [(2004) 13 SCC 342], Canara Bank and others v. Swapan Kumar Pani and another reported in [(2006) 3 SCC 251], Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand reported in [(2012) 3 SCC 580], Bidyut Buragohain v. State of Assam reported in [2005 (3) GLT 457], etc. that there is no scope for issuing a fresh charge sheet on the same cause of action and on the same and identical set of charges. The issuance of second charge sheet O.A. No/243/2022 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 5 and the penalty order dated 26/27.07.2022 based on the said second charge sheet are arbitrary and illegal amounting to violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as such liable to be set aside and quashed with direction for refund of the amount already recovered from the salary of the applicant in terms of the penalty order dated 04.10.2021 and 26/27.07.2022. The applicant had submitted written statement of defence on 01.06.2022. But the same penalty of (1) 1 year increment stoppage without cumulative effect and (2) Recovery of Rs. 15000/- per month for 18 months w.e.f. July, 2022 has been again issued against the applicant. Applicant had submitted appeal dated 12.09.2022 but the same has not yet been considered.
4. Respondents have filed their written statement and stated that the claim of the applicant namely Sri Remigious Syiem, Postal Assistant, Shillong GPO regarding issuance of the 2nd Charge Sheet dated 06.05.2022 issued on the same cause of action and the same identical charges containing the previous Charge Sheet dated 05.05.2021, which was set aside by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 04.10.2021 O.A. No/243/2022 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 6 is not true and correct. As per the respondents, in the earlier Charge Sheet dated 05.05.2021 issued by the office of the respondents was served to the applicant with a clerical error, wherein it is wrongly stated that Central Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred as CCS Rules) instead of Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The Appellate Authority quashed the punishment order dated 04.10.2021 vide order dated 23.12.2021 only on the ground that punishment imposed on the applicant under the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (non-existent) and such violation is fall under the provision of Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Considering all this aspect, the Appellate authority set aside the punishment order dated 04.10.2021 with a liberty to take appropriate steps on the alleged offence as per Rules and Law. Meaning thereby, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 23.12.2021 remit the matter to the disciplinary authority to recourse (de novo trial) the further action as per the power conferred by the Rule 27(3) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 reads with Rule 126 of Postal Manual Volume III. On the basis of the observation made by O.A. No/243/2022 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 7 the Appellate Authority under Rule 27(3), the office of the respondents started proceeding against the applicant. Further, it was made clear that therefore the applicant challenging the part of the order dated 23.12.2021 issued by the Appellate Authority wherein liberty was given to the disciplinary authority to proceed against the applicant. As such it is open to the disciplinary authority to frame any charges in addition to or in substitution of original charge- sheet. Therefore, the claim of the applicant for issuance of 2 nd charge sheet 06.05.2022 in a continuation of the earlier enquiry as the Appellate Authority set aside the impugned punishment imposed under a wrong set of rules. The Appellate Authority only remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority without entering to the factual merits of the case and without imposing any impediment on the alleged charge. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, it can be understood that the Appellate Authority kept open the hands of the disciplinary authority to take appropriate action against the delinquent as per prescribed Law. Hence, upon dissatisfaction on the liberty part, the applicant has O.A. No/243/2022 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 8 challenged the Appellate Authority's Order dated 23.12.2021. As such, the applicant has no any legal and infeasible right to challenge the decision of the Appellate Authority made as per the proper provision of law.
5. During the argument, Smt. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant placed the following decisions and submitted that the second penalty based on the same cause of action would amount to double jeopardy.
1. Lt. Governor, Delhi and Others Vs. HC Narinder Singh reported in (2004) 13 SCC 342.
2. Radhika Kapur and Others Vs. DLF Universal Ltd., reported in (2004) 13 SCC 343.
3. Canara Bank and Ors. Vs. Swapan Kumar Pani and Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 1641 of 2004 dated 24.02.2006.
4. Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 1458 of 2012 [SLP (C) No. 5921 of 2007].
5. CAT, Ahmedabad Bench in O.A. No. 750 of 1998 dated 04.09.2001 (J.M. Makwana Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
As per the learned counsel for the applicant, applicant is mainly challenging the impugned Final Order dated 26/27.07.2022 (Annexure-A/4), which was issued on the basis of second time Show Cause Notice of action, upon which O.A. No/243/2022 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 9 earlier one Charge-sheet dated 05.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5) was issued and ultimately Appellate Authority had set aside the penalty order dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure-A/6).
6. The applicant at para 4.16 in the O.A. has stated that the Charge-sheet had been issued against the applicant after a long lapse of more than 6 years from the date of the event in respect of which the Charge-sheet and penalty order had been issued. The events relate to the period from October 2014 to 29.01.2015 and the Charge-sheet had been issued on 05.05.2021 i.e. after more than 6 years and 7 months. Further no reason or explanation has been adduced for the inordinate delay in issuing the Charge-sheet. However, respondents in their written statement, could not make any point on the issue of delay for issuance of Charge-sheet. However, Shri P. Saikia, Addl. CGSC for the respondents submitted that proper provision of law was not applied in the previous Charge sheet dated 05.05.2021 therefore, same was cancelled and issued another fresh Charge sheet dated 06.05.2022.
O.A. No/243/2022 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 10
7. We have heard Smt. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri P. Saikia, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents and gone through the pleadings.
8. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Meghalaya Division, Shillong had issued a Memorandum of Charge-sheet dated 05.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5) proposing to hold an inquiry against the applicant under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 with the following one Article of Charge.
"That the said Shri Remigious Syiem, while working as PA Sub Account Branch Shillong GPO, during the period from October 2014 to 20.01.2015, failed to carry out the proper check of SO daily account and ECB memo of Neigrihms SO. He did not point out regarding retention of excess cash & fictitious ECB memo of Neigrihms SO and did not report to DPM, Shillong GPO, which he should have done. He also failed to bring the matter to the knowledge of higher authority for taking necessary action to remove the excess cash.
As PA Sub account branch of Shillong GPO during the period from October 2014 to 20.01.2015 if he had checked the SO daily account and the fictitious ECB memo submitted by Shri Chandra Bha! Prasad the then SPM Neigrihms SO, the fraud of Neigrihms SO could have been prevented. This negligence on his part gave the opportunity to the SPM, Neigrihms SO to misappropriate the Govt. money to the tune of 28,26,648/-(Twenty eight lakhs.twenty six thousand six hundred forty eight only).
O.A. No/243/2022 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 11 Had appropriated actions been taken by Shri Remigious Syiem, as PA Sub Account Branch Shillong GPO, to remove the excess cash from the concerned office and also to report the matter to the higher authority, as prescribed in Rules 58, 59, 60 of Postal Manual Vol-VI (part III), loss of Govt. money to the tune of Rs. 28,26,648/-
(Twenty eight lakhs,twenty six thousand six hundred forty eight only). could have been prevented. By the above acts said Shri Remigious Syiem, is alleged to have infringed the provision of Rules 58, 59, 60 of Postal Manual Vol-VI (part III).
Thus it is imputed that Shri Remigious Syiem acted in a manner which was devoid of devotion to duty and was unbecoming on his part and violating provisions of Rule 3(1) (ii) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rule 1965."
9. After receipt of the Memorandum of Charge-sheet dated 05.05.2021, applicant submitted his written statement of defence on 14.06.2021 (Annexure-A/6) to the Disciplinary Authority (Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Meghalaya Division, Shillong) and denied the allegations levelled on him. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority without conducting any inquiry, issued the impugned penalty Order dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure-A/7) whereby penalty of (i) stoppage of increment for 1 year without cumulative effect and (ii) Recovery of Rs. 15000/- per month for 18 months w.e.f. October, 2021 had been imposed upon the applicant (Annexure-A/7). Applicant O.A. No/243/2022 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 12 also submitted appeal on 25.10.2021 (Annexure-A/8) to the Director of Postal Services (HQ), Office of the Chief Post Master General, North East Circle, Shillong, Meghalaya. Being aggrieved with the Charge-sheet dated 05.05.2021 and penalty order dated 04.10.2021, applicant had approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 290 of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 01.11.2021 by directing the respondents particularly Appellate Authority to consider and dispose of the appeal of the applicant dated 25.10.2021 within a period of three months (Annexure-A/9). In compliance of the aforesaid order, Appellate Authority in exercise of power conferred upon him under Rule 24 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 had set aside the penalty order dated 04.10.2021 issued by the respondent No. 4 without prejudice to further action. The Disciplinary Authority also vide order dated 27.01.2022 (Annexure-A/2) had dropped the Charge sheet dated 05.05.2021 without prejudice to further action.
10. However, the Disciplinary Authority issued a fresh Charge-sheet dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure-A/3) on the same and identical set of charges and on the same cause of O.A. No/243/2022 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 13 action under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 whereby penalty of (i) 1 year increment stoppage without cumulative effect and (ii) Recovery of Rs. 15000/- per month for 02 years w.e.f. July 2022 had been imposed upon the applicant vide order dated 26/27.07.2022 (Annexure-A/4). Contents of Article 1 is being reproduced below:
"That the said Shri Remigious Syiem, while working as PA Sub Account Branch Shillong GPO, during the period from October 2014 to 20.01.2015, failed to carry out the proper check of SO daily account and ECB memo of Neigrihms SO. He did not point out regarding retention of excess cash & fictitious ECB memo of Neigrihms SO and did not report to DPM, Shillong GPO, which he should have done. He also failed to bring the matter to the knowledge of higher authority for taking necessary action to remove the excess cash.
As PA Sub account branch of Shillong GPO, during the period from October 2014 to 20.01.2015 Shri Remigious Syiem failed to check the balances held by Neigrihms S.O which had exceeded the maximum authorized balance to be maintained by the sub offices. Whenever the cash balance retained by a sub office exceeds the authorized balance fixed for those offices, the SPM must furnish reasons on the reverse of the S.O daily account as per Rule 102(11) of Postal Manual Vol- VI (part III). The details of the liabilities were never furnished in the ECB memo nor the reasons on the reverse of the SO daily account by the SPM. Thus the said PA sub account had failed to check the ECB memo and S.O daily account This negligence on his part gave the opportunity to the SPM, Neigrihms SO to retained excess cash and thereby misappropriated O.A. No/243/2022 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 14 Govt. money to the time of 28,26,648/-(Twenty eight lakhs, twenty six thousand,six hundred forty eight) only.
Had appropriated actions been taken by Shri Remigious Syiem, as PA Sub Account Branch Shillong GPO, to remove the excess cash from the concerned office and also to report the matter to the higher authority, as prescribed in Rules 58 and Rule 102(B) of Postal Manual Vol-VI (part III), loss of Govt. money to the tune of Rs. 28, 26,648/- (Twenty eight lakhs, twenty six thousand six hundred forty eight )only, could have been prevented.
By the above acıs said Shri Remigious Syiem, is alleged to have infringed the provision of Rule 58 & Rule 102(B) of Postal Manual Vol-VI (part III).
Thus it is imputed that Shri Remigious Syiem acted in a manner which was devoid of devotion to duty and was unbecoming on his part and violating provisions of Rule 3(1) (ii) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rule 1964."
11. We have gone thoroughly with both the Charge- sheet dated 05.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5) and 06.05.2022 (Annexure-A/3) and found that the fresh Charge-sheet was issued on the same cause of action and on the same and identical set of charges.
12. It was incumbent on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to conduct an inquiry but no inquiry seemed to be conducted and penalty order had been issued without the charges being proved. It is the settled position of law as laid O.A. No/243/2022 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 15 down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India reported in [(2001) 9 SCC 180] that if the charges are factual in nature and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an inquiry should be called for and the same is a minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice. The penalty has civil consequence and the observance of the principles of natural justice at least by holding an inquiry was a basic requirement. The applicant had already undergone the enquiry proceeding on the same set of charges. The action of the respondents for imposition of penalty without holding an inquiry and issuing fresh Charge-sheet on the same cause of action and identical set of charges are not only dehors the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 but also arbitrary and causes harassment to the applicant. Since both punishments are running simultaneously, hence, second penalty based on the same cause of action would amount to double jeopardy as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lt. Governor, Delhi and Ors. (supra).
O.A. No/243/2022 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 16
13. In the facts of the present case, we find that the applicant was not provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard. This was found to be an infirmity. To cure this infirmity it was held that applicant need to face fresh enquiry from the preliminary hearing stage on the same charges. In our opinion, this view is not correct. Enquiry should be made from the point wherefrom the irregularity supervened. If fresh enquiry is allowed, there is possibility that evidence in the enquiry found to be in favour of the charged officer can be wiped off. Justice should not only be done, but seen to have been done. It is the cardinal principle of law canonized in the dictum: "NEMO DEBET BIS VEXARI PRO UNO DELICTO"
meaning thereby that no one should be vexed twice for the same offence.
14. Taking into consideration entire conspectus of the case, we, hereby, quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23.12.2021 (Annexure-A/1) so far the expression 'without prejudice to further action'.
O.A. No/243/2022 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 17
15. O.A. is partly allowed.
16. No order as to costs.
(SANJIV KUMAR) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
PB
O.A. No/243/2022
PRASANNA Digitally
PRASANNA
signed by
BASUMATARYBASUMATARY