Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Shaik Hyder vs Postal on 7 July, 2025
1
OA.No.1112/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.021/01112/2018
ORDER RESERVED ON 24.06.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 07.07.2025
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Shaik Hyder, Gr-C
S/o late Sri Shaik Moulana
Aged: 63 years
Occ: Retired Postal Assistant, Secunderabad HO
Secunderabad Division, Sec'bad-500 003. .....Applicant
(By Advocate Sri B.Gurudas)
Vs.
1. Secretary, Govt. of India
Ministry of Communications & IT
Dept. of Posts, Dak Bhavan
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General
Telangana Circle
Hyderabad - 500 001.
3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Secunderabad Division
Hyderabad - 500 080. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Smt.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=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN
HYDERABAD, Phone=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2
APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f
41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=
PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
SANDHYA document
Location:
Date: 2025.07.10 16:14:15+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
OA.No.1112/2018
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 pertaining to the following impugned orders -
1. Memo No.F/4-2/11-12/R-14/15-16 dt.6.4.2015(Annexure-I)
2. UPSC Advice No.3/133/17-S.I dated 1.9.2017 (Annexure-VII)
3. Order No. C-14016/15/2017-VP Dt.09.11.2017(Annexure-IX) a. declare the action of the Respondents in not considering the submission of the applicant and evidence on record and awarding the heavy penalty of 10% cut in the pension, that too after two and half years of his retirement is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Rules and instructions prescribed and in violation of principles of natural justice and the Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and b. set aside and quash the said illegal disproportionate penalty with consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows:
i. The applicant had entered the Postal Department, on 28.02.1986, as a Postal Assistant. Since then, he worked hard and sincerely, wherever he was posted.
ii. While he was working as Postal Assistant, at Secunderabad HO, the 4th Respondent had issued Charge Memo No.F/4-2/11-12/R-14/15-16, dt.06.04.2015, after 6 years, containing five false and fictitious allegations, just 24 days before his retirement, with an intention to put him to financial harassment. The gist of the articles of charge is given below:
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=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.07.10 16:14:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 OA.No.1112/2018 ARTICLE-I Sri Shaik Hyder, while officiating as SPM, Begumpet SO, failed to comply with the orders of transfer issued by SSP, Secunderabad, vide memo No.B1/RT/Dlgs/09, dated 22.06.09, wherein Sri V.Balaji Babu, PA, Begumpet SO, was posted as O.A. Divisional Office. Non-implementation of posting orders facilitated Sri V.Balaji Babu to continue as SB Counter PA, Begumpet SO, beyond his normal tenure and commit misappropriation to the tune of Rs.40,34,750 (detected so far) in various kinds of SB Accounts at the Begumpet SO.
ARTICLE-II Sri Shaik Hyder, while officiating as SPM, Begumpet SO, failed to follow the prescribed procedure, as laid down in Rule 2 (5) of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual (Volume-I), Savings Bank Procedure (Corrected up to April 2010), to shift Sri V.Balaji Babu, PA, Begumpet SO, on completion of his tenure as SB Counter clerk. This paved the way for continuance of Sri V.Balaji Babu as SB Counter PA, Begumpet SO, beyond the date by which he was to be shifted from the SB Counter and, thus, gave scope to commit misappropriation to the tune of Rs.48,24,250/- (detected so far) in various kinds of SB Accounts at Begumpet.
ARTICLE-III Sri Shaik Hyder, PA, while working as Sr.PA, Begumpet SO, failed to follow the procedure for maintaining the stock register of Pass Books, according to the format prescribed under Rule 6(2) (b) of the POSB Manual (Vol-I).
ARTICLE-IV Sri Shaik Hyder, PA, while working as Sr.PA, Begumpet SO, failed to follow the procedure prescribed there-for under Rule 31(2) (ii), 31 (3) (i) and 154A read with Rule 35 of the PO SB Manual Volume I [Savings Bank Procedure, (Corrected up to April 2010)] while checking vouchers received from SB counter. Had Sri Shaik Hyder followed the prescribed procedure, misappropriation to the tune of Rs.4,05,000/- would have surfaced earlier.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRL 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.07.10 16:14:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA.No.1112/2018 ARTICLE-V Sri Shaik Hyder, PA, while working as Sr.PA, Begumpet SO, failed to follow the procedure prescribed there-for under Rule 27 read with Rule 25 of PO SB Manual Volume I, while opening MIS Account No.17237, on 09.10.2010, for Rs.49,500/-.
iii. On completion of the inquiry, Presenting Officer's brief was supplied to the applicant and he filed his reply, dt.21.11.2016. It is alleged that the Inquiry Officer (IO), without considering the submission made by the applicant and the evidence on record, submitted his report, dt.13.12.2016, holding all the charges as proved. The same was supplied to the applicant by the 3rd Respondent, and the applicant submitted his reply, dt.26.01.2017, explaining his defence elaborately and disproving the charges. Thereafter, the case was forwarded to the Postal Directorate, for further processing under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as the official had already retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2015.
iv. UPSC Advice No.F.No.3/133/17-S.I, dt.01.09.2017, was supplied to the applicant along with letter No.C-14016/15/2017, dt.05.09.2017, of the Directorate. The UPSC held Article-I as not proved, Article-II as partly proved and other articles as proved. The applicant submitted his reply, dt.09.10.2017, against the UPSC advice. The defence, in respect of each Article of Charge, was furnished in detail, but the competent authority did not evaluate the evidence on record in the right perspective, judiciously. Without considering the evidence against the charges and submissions made by the applicant, as per the Applicant, 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=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.07.10 16:14:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA.No.1112/2018 the Competent Authority awarded the penalty of withholding of 10% of the monthly pension, for a period of two years, vide memo No.C- 14016/15/2017-VP, dt.09.11.2017.
3. Grounds for relief, advanced by the applicant, include the following -
i. Action of the Respondents in awarding the penalty of withholding of 10% from the monthly pension to the applicant, without establishing the charges, is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
ii. Advice rendered by the UPSC, in this case, is not correct and not based on the facts and evidence adduced during the course of inquiry.
The UPSC has not examined the case judiciously. The observations of the UPSC, in respect of the Articles-II to V, are not correct.
Submissions made by the applicant against the advice of the UPSC were not considered by the Respondents and they acted mechanically and awarded the disproportionate penalty.
iii. The action of the Respondents, in issuing the charge sheet, without any prima facie case, holding the charges as proved without producing relevant documents and witnesses concerned and awarding heavy penalty of withholding of 10% of monthly pension for two years, ignoring the overwhelming evidence on record against the charge, is not only too harsh, but also shows the non-observance of the Doctrine of Proportionality. Such penalty is illegal, arbitrary and against the rules, and is liable to be set aside.
iv. According to the applicant, the main offender, viz., Sri V.Balaji Babu, ex-PA, Begumpet, is still available and has got substantial properties.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRL 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.07.10 16:14:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA.No.1112/2018 Hence, the unadjusted loss, if any, can be recovered from him, by invoking the Revenue Recovery Act, as per Rule 204 A, of the Postal Manual, Vol-III. Instead of taking action against the main offender to recover the defrauded amount, the respondents irregularly selected the applicant for action at the fag end his service. Their action is illegal, arbitrary and against the rules.
v. The charge sheet was issued to the applicant, in respect of the alleged incident that took place during the years 2008-11, after 4 years. No enquiry was made with him during the preliminary investigation, nor his statement was recorded. In the absence of such an enquiry, it has to be concluded that the applicant is not responsible, in any way, in this case.
vi. The disciplinary authority initiated disciplinary action against the applicant, in respect of the alleged incidents that took place 4 years back. According to the orders, issued by the DOPT, vide No.134/2/83- ADV.1, dt.2.4.1985, charge sheet has to be issued within 2 months from the date of receipt of the investigation report. But in this case, there was abnormal delay of 4 years, for which the disciplinary / administrative authorities alone are responsible. On the ground of delay, the penalty is liable to be set aside.
vii. It is further submitted that it took more than 2 years to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. As per CVC Circular 02/01/2016 No.000- VGL-18, dt.18.01.2016, issued in pursuance of Supreme Court judgment in the case of Premnath Bali vs. Registrar of High Court of Delhi in Civil Appeal No.958 of 2010, inquiry has to be completed 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=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.07.10 16:14:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA.No.1112/2018 within a period of six months. The applicant has also relied upon the following judgments, in support of his arguments, against the delay in the disciplinary proceedings-
a. The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh & Anr. decided on 05.04.1990. Equivalent citations: AIR 1990 CriLJ 1315, 1990 (60) FLR 824 b. P.V.Mahadevan vs. M.D.Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Bench:
R.Pal, D A Lakshmanan, Case No. Appeal (Civil) 4901 of 2005, judgment dt. 08.08.2005.
c. A.Ganesan vs. The Secretary to Government, before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, dt.23.02.2011 in WP(MD) No.11174 of 2009 and M.P.(MD). Nos.1 & 2 of 2009 and MP (MD) No.1 of 2010.
viii. He has also taken the plea that the 4th Respondent did not supply copies of the listed documents along with the charge memo, as required under the order of DOPT 134/2/83-ADV-1, dt.2.4.1985, and he was, thus, denied opportunity to defend the case, violating the principles of natural justice.
ix. It is also submitted that the Inquiry Officer conducted inquiry in a biased manner, violating the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, denying reasonable opportunity to the CO/applicant, violating the principles of natural justice. The Inquiry Officer did not complete the inquiry within the time prescribed as per rules. Hence, it is not valid and is liable to be set aside.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRL 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.07.10 16:14:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA.No.1112/2018 x. The applicant has submitted that the 4th Respondent issued charge memo to the applicant for contributory negligence, but he has not explained how the applicant has contributed to the fraud and the consequent loss. He has issued the charge memo in gross violation of the orders contained in DG P&T No.1154/176/78-Disc.II, dt.13.02.1981. The relevant portion is extracted below-
"....It should be clearly understood by all the disciplinary authorities that while an official can be punished for good and sufficient reasons, the penalty of recovery can be awarded only if the lapses on his part have either led to the commission of the fraud or misappropriation or frustrated inquiries as a result of which it has not been possible to locate the real culprit. ...."
xi. According to the applicant, there is no proof that the negligence or breach of orders on the part of the applicant has led to loss to the department. The applicant cannot be held responsible for any loss.
Hence, the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, against the rules and liable to be set aside.
xii. It is also submitted that the charge sheet is vague and it is not explained how the applicant has contributed to the misappropriation done by the SB Counter Clerk and to what extent. The charge is not clear, definite, distinct and is framed in gross violation of Rule 14(3) of the CCS(CCA) Rules 1965. Issuing such vague charge sheet and, asking the government servant to face it, is illegal as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Ananth R Kulkarni v. YP Education Society in Civil Appeal No.3935 of 2013 -
"....If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded, he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him." 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=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.07.10 16:14:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA.No.1112/2018 xiii. The applicant has denied the allegation that he has violated the rules mentioned in the charge memo, nor has he committed any irregularities, as alleged. There is no evidence to prove the charges levelled against him. Awarding disproportionate penalty, without establishing the charges, is illegal, arbitrary and against rules. Under such circumstance, the penalty is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.
xiv. As the punishment of withholding of 10% from the pension of the applicant was awarded after withholding all the retirement benefits for more than two years and since it is too heavy and disproportionate in relation to the gravity of the offence and shocks the conscience, this Tribunal can intervene in the matter, as held by various Courts in the cases shown hereunder-
a. Supreme Court judgment in the case of Collector Singh vs. LML Ltd., Kanpur in Civil Appeal No.10125/2014 (Arising out of SLP) (Civil) 37619/2012.
Supreme Court intervened and modified penalty.
b. Supreme Court of India judgment in the case of Director General R.P.F. and Ors. Vs. Ch.Sai Babu on 29 January, 2003 - Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 SC 1437, 2003 (51) BLJR 1653.
Held: All relevant facts have to be considered before awarding penalty.
c. Supreme Court of India judgment in the case of S.R.Tewari vs. Union of India & Anr. [Civil Appeal Nos.4715-4716 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.22263-22264 of 2012] Contempt Petition (C) Nos.180-181 of 2013.
Held: that the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias."
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRL 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.07.10 16:14:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA.No.1112/2018
4. On notice, Respondents have put in appearance through their Counsel and filed a written reply, stating that -
i. Sri Shaik Hyder, while working as PA, Begumpet SO, was served Memorandum, under Rule-14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, vide Memo No.F/4-2/11-12/R-14/15-16, dt.06.04.2015. He retired from service on 30.04.2015. In accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the departmental proceedings instituted against him, while in service, were continued and the inquiry was completed on 29.10.2016. The IO's Report, in this case, was received on 15.12.2016. A copy of the IO's Report was sent to the retired Charged Official, vide letter, dt.29.12.2016, and it was delivered to the official on 30.12.2016. On his request, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) granted him 15 days' time for submitting his defence. His representation, dt.27.01.2017, was received on 30.01.2017. The case, being under Rule-9, was referred to the Directorate for conclusion of the proceedings.
ii. On receipt of the report from the Senior Postmaster, Secunderabad HO, informing about variation in balance in Begumpet SO PPF A/c No.6000302 to an extent of Rs.70,000/- and also information given by Sri A.Radesh, PA, Begumpet SO, to the SSPOs, Secunderabad Division, over phone, on 30.10.2011, regarding suspected non- credits and irregularities in various SB accounts for the period pertaining to Sri V.Balaji Babu, ex.PA, Begumpet SO, the case came to light. Rule-
14 inquiry against the main offender, Sri V.Balaji Babu, was completed on 04.10.2013 and the IO report was issued on 17.02.2014.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRL 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.07.10 16:14:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA.No.1112/2018 Proceedings were issued, vide letter, dt.13.10.2014, dismissing V.Balaji Babu from service. Four other officials, including the applicant, were also dealt with in the matter as co-offenders. iii. The retired Charged Official/Applicant had approached the CAT, Hyderabad, to suspend the operation of the charge memo and to release provisional pension, leave encashment, GPF and CGIES, due for payment to him. Except leave encashment and DCRG, other benefits were released to him. Further, OA.No.791/2015 was disposed of by directing the disciplinary authority to complete the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the charge memo, dt.06.04.2015, within the stipulated time. The Director (DE), vide order No.C-14016/15/2017- VP, dt.09.11.2017, finalized case.
iv. The case was placed before the President of India, who, after careful consideration of the facts, circumstances, records of the case and the advice of the Commission, concluded that the charged official had been given reasonable opportunity to defend his case and the UPSC had taken all the factors mentioned by the CO into consideration while tendering its advice and that the advice of UPSC, in this case, is just and acceptable. Accordingly, the President of India ordered that 10% of monthly pension, otherwise admissible to the applicant/CO, be withheld for a period of two years and, further, gratuity admissible to him should be released, if not required otherwise. Aggrieved by the orders of Directorate, the applicant has filed the present OA. v. According to the Respondents, based on the IO Report and the contention of the charged official, and, after analyzing each and every 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=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.07.10 16:14:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA.No.1112/2018 Article of Charge and finding all the articles of charge proved beyond doubt and, since the gravity of offence was also severe, the case was forwarded to the Directorate, as per Rule-9, keeping in view the Directorate guidelines issued on the subject from time to time.
vi. The UPSC Advice No.FNo.3/133/17-S.I, dt.01.09.2017, was supplied to the applicant, vide letter, dt.05.09.2017, of the Directorate. The charged official submitted his written representation, dt.09.10.2017.
The UPSC had held the Article of Charge No.1 as 'not conclusively proved' against the CO, and Article No.II as 'partly proved'. Article Nos. III, IV and V were held as 'proved'. The contention of the applicant that the submission made by him against the advice of the UPSC were not at all considered by the respondents, who had acted mechanically and awarded the disproportionate penalty, is not tenable.
The points he had raised in his representation were already raised during the inquiry and have been considered by the Inquiry Officer while furnishing his report. These facts have also been taken into consideration by the UPSC while tendering their advice. The inquiry proceedings were held as per the prescribed procedure. Reasonable opportunity had been given to the CO to defend his case. Thus, the competent authority has awarded the penalty after duly considering all the above said facts.
vii. It is also submitted that an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- was got credited by Sri V.Balaji Babu, the main offender, who was issued a charge memo under Rule-14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The charges framed against the official were proved beyond doubt and he was dismissed 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=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.07.10 16:14:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA.No.1112/2018 from service. Further, the properties held in the name of Smt.V.Tirupathamma, late mother of Sri V.Balaji Babu, have been identified and action has been taken to recover the amount by invoking the RR Act against the said properties. The Dist.Collector, Guntur Dist., has authorized Tahsildars of Tadikonda and Ponnur Mandals of Guntur Dist., in this regard.
viii. The applicant was given every opportunity to defend his case. Instead of defending his case, he is trying to blame the administration for delay in issuing the charge sheet. The fact remains that, out of five articles of charge, three are proved beyond doubt, one article is not conclusively proved and the remaining is partly proved, for which the applicant deserves the penalty awarded by the competent authority.
Inquiry was conducted in accordance with the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. Only after all the charges were proved the disciplinary authority has issued orders, taking all the facts into consideration. Thus, the order issued by the competent authority is not illegal, arbitrary or against rules.
ix. The applicant was identified as one of the co-offenders in the case.
The fraud came to light on 01.11.2011. After collecting the material evidence against the official and after completion of verification of the past work only, the charge sheet, was issued to him, on 06.05.2015.
x. It is also contended by the respondents that, at every stage, the CO tried to gain some time and used delaying tactics, which also contributed to delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings.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=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.07.10 16:14:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 OA.No.1112/2018 xi. The contention of the CO that the charge sheet is vague, is also not tenable. All the charges were proved during the course of the inquiry and the case was placed before the President of India. After considering the facts and records of the case, UPSC, vide their advice/letter No.F.3/133/17-s.i/DTD 01.09.2017, tendered their advice. The Commission advised that the ends of justice would be met in this case, if the penalty of withholding of 10% of monthly pension, otherwise admissible to the CO is imposed on him, for a period of two years. His gratuity may be released, if not required to be withheld in the context of any other case.
xii. With the above arguments, respondents prayed to dismiss the OA with costs.
5. Heard both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
6. The applicant has approached this Tribunal in the second round of litigation.
He had earlier filed OA.No.791/2015, assailing the action of the respondents in not paying the retiral benefits such as DCRG, Commutation and Leave Encashment amounts. This Tribunal, vide order, dt.19.06.2016, had disposed it of, with the following direction -
"5. It is a matter of fact that the applicant submitted written statement of defence to the charge memo dated 6.4.2015. The disciplinary authority appointed the Inquiry Officer as well as the Presenting Officer. The matter is now rested with the Inquiry Officer. Such is the situation, we deem it appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority - 4th respondent to complete the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the charge memo dated 6.4.2015 and pass appropriate orders within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Accordingly, this OA is disposed of. Interim order granted on 12.8.2015 shall stand vacated. Accordingly, MA No.907/2015 is disposed of. No order as to costs." 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=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.07.10 16:14:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 OA.No.1112/2018
7. It is clear that this Tribunal allowed the enquiry against the applicant, vide Charge Memo, dt.06.04.2015, to be concluded and the said charge memo had not been declared vague, delayed or otherwise defective in the said order. The entire evidence has been scrutinized at different levels, starting from the stage of the disciplinary enquiry.
8. This Tribunal has consistently avoided interfering with the decision in disciplinary matters where there is no apparent infirmity in the procedure adopted and/or the penalty imposed, unless warranted by violation of the principles of natural justice or on account of discrimination or disproportionate punishment. In this regard, the following portion of our order, dt.05.06.2025, in OA.No.831/2018, is extracted:
"12.This Tribunal has rather limited powers when it comes to review of disciplinary proceedings and the resultant penalty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows-
a. Parma Nanda vs. State of Haryana and others 1989 (2) Supreme Court 177;
Held: "......the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is malafide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter."
b. UT of Dadra & Nagar Haveli vs. Gulabhia M.Lad, (2010) 5 SCC;
Held: "8.The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters has come up for consideration before this Court time and again. It is worthwhile to refer to some of these decisions. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others, this Court held:
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRL 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.07.10 16:14:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 OA.No.1112/2018 "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 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".
c. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Director General, RPF vs. Ch.Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, reiterated that the High Court should ordinarily not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Disciplinary Authority in the matter of imposition of punishment and observed:
".....Normally, the punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority should not be disturbed by the High Court or Tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or 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."
d. In the case of State Bank of India vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow [1994(1) SLR 516] also it held that a High Court or Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the relevant authority-
"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'."
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=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.07.10 16:14:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 17 OA.No.1112/2018 e. In Union of India v. K.G. Soni,(2006) 6 SCC 794, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows -
"Judicial intervention on the quantum of penalty imposed is minimum. Unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further, to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In the normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed."
9. None of the contingencies enumerated in the judgments cited above, which could call for interference by this Tribunal, exist. We also find that the submissions of the applicant / CO have been minutely considered by the Commission before coming to the conclusion in respect of each Article of Charge. Reasons for conclusion are also explained in the said advice of the Commission. Thus, the issue before us is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by the above order of this Tribunal.
10. The OA is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
07.07.2025
/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=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.07.10 16:14:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0