Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
K Siva Shanker vs Dept Of Posts on 20 August, 2025
1
OA.No.488/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
CIRCUIT SITTING AT VIJAYAWADA
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.020/00488/2017
ORDER RESERVED ON 22.07.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 20.08.2025
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
K.Siva Shanker
S/o. Sri K.Adinarayana
Aged 30 years, Occ: PA PRODDATUR HO
Proddatur Division
Kadapa District (A.P.) .....Applicant
(By Advocate: B.Gurudas)
Vs.
1. Union of India rep. by
The Chief Postmaster General
AP Circle, VIJAYAWADA - 520003,
2. The Postmaster General
Kurnool Region
Kurnool - 515 002.
3. The Superintendent of Posts
Proddatur Division
PRODDATUR
KADAPA District, (AP). ....Respondents
(By Advocate Sri P.Krishna, Sr.PC for CG)
*****
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA 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=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=
PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
SANDHYA document
Location:
Date: 2025.08.29 10:27:32+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
OA.No.488/2017
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
".....to call for the records pertaining to the following impugned orders:
i. Memo No.F4/1/2010-11, dated 28.08.2014 (Annexure-I) ii. Memo No.F4/1/2010-11, dated 01.08.2015 (Annexure-IX) iii. Memo No.ST/VP-KSS/KNL/2015, dated 10.03.2017 (Annexure-
XI) and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the rules and instructions prescribed and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside and quash the said illegal orders passed by the Respondents with a 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 brief, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:
i. The applicant has challenged the penalty of reduction of his pay by one stage, from Rs.10960+2400 GP to Rs.10570+2400 GP, in the time scale of pay of Rs.5200-20200+GP 2400, for a period of two years, with immediate effect from 01.08.2015, with cumulative effect, without increments during the period of reduction, vide memo no.F4/1/2010-11, dt.01.08.2015, on the basis of the Inquiry Report, d.01.07.2015, submitted after conducting enquiry into the charges levelled against the applicant, vide Memo No.F4/1/2010-11, dt.28.08.2014, and confirmed by the 1st respondent, vide memo no.ST/VP-KSS/KNL/2015, dt.10.03.2017.Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.08.29 10:27:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 OA.No.488/2017 ii. The charge sheet, dt.28.08.2014, under Rule-14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, was issued to the applicant by the 3rd Respondent, containing two false allegations. The Inquiry Officer, after completing the inquiry, submitted his report, dt.01.07.2015, holding the two charges as proved, without considering the written statement of defence, dt.21.07.2015, and the evidence on record. The 3rd Respondent relied upon the report of the Inquiry officer and awarded the above said penalty, without establishing the charges. The applicant submitted his revision petition, dt.23.11.2015, to the 1st Respondent, who rejected the same, vide memo No.ST/VP-KSS/KNL/2015, dt.10.03.2017,without going into the merits, ignoring the oral and documentary evidence and also the submissions of the applicant. It is contended that both Respondent Nos.3 & 1 failed to do justice to the applicant.
iii. According to the applicant, the above penalty is unduly harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. It will have disastrous and everlasting impact on the applicant's career, including financial upgradations, pensionary benefits, etc. As held by the Apex Court as well as by this Tribunal, in such circumstances, this Tribunal can intervene in the matter in the interest of justice. Hence, this OA.
iv. In the year 2010, the applicant was posted as Sub-Postmaster, Vemula SO, account with Pulivendula H.O., w.e.f. 26.03.2010. He states that, after joining the Vemula Sub Post Office, he developed domestic and health problems, as a consequence of which he had to go on leave frequently. Taking advantage of his frequent absence, the MPKBY Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.08.29 10:27:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA.No.488/2017 Agent and the GDS Packer joined hands and committed fraud in some RD accounts, by forging his signature. They committed the fraud in the month of April, 2010. In the month of August, the MPKBY Agent submitted the commission bill. While checking the bill, three ASLAAS-6, in respect of 29 RD accounts, were not found in the records, as they were not presented at the Sub Post Office to the applicant. However, the ASLAAS and RD pass books were got stamped and also entries and signatures of the Sub Postmaster were forged by the MPKBY Agent and the GDS Packer of the office.
v. It is also submitted that the Inspector, who verified the records, had asked the applicant to credit the amount in respect of the 29 RD accounts, promising him to refund the amount after the real culprit was caught. Believing the Inspector, the applicant credited an amount of Rs.35,335/-, expecting the refund. The then Superintendent of Post Offices, satisfied with his explanation and the evidence on record, had closed the case, in the year 2010. But, the closed case was reopened by the present Superintendent, who issued the charge memo under Rule-14 of the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965, vide memo no.F$/1/2010-11, dt.28.04.2014, containing the following false and fictitious allegations. The gist of allegations is as follows -
Article-I That the said Sri K.Siva Sankar, PA, Pulivendla HO, while working as Sub Postmaster, Vemula SO under Pulivendla HO during the period from 26.03.2010 to 20.08.2010, accepted the deposits from MPKBY agent No.260411 on 30.04.2010 and acknowledged receipt of cash Rs.10000/- + 89, 10000 + 172 and 9970 + 172.20 in the Aslass-6, made entries of deposits in the RD pass books with Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.08.29 10:27:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA.No.488/2017 dated initials, duly impressing with date stamps also in the passbooks, but failed and account for the said deposits on or after 30.04.2010 and the amount was misappropriated for his personal use. .....by his above acts violated the provisions of Rule-106 read with 31(2)(ii) of PO SB Manual Vol-I and the instructions contained in DG Post letter no.37-1/72-SB dated 10.03.1972 and Rule-4 of P&T FHB Volume and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming of a Gov. servant as required by Rule 3 (i)(i)(ii)&(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-II That the said Sri K.Suva Sankar while working in the aforesaid capacity during the aforesaid period accepted the RPLI premium amounts from the following insurants, on the dates noted against each, and made entries of premium K.Siva Prasad, A.Prameela Devi and A.Nageswara Rao holders of the said RPLI policies in their statements dated 09.03.2011, 09.03.2011 & 09.03.2011 respectively, have deposed to have attended the post office personally on the said dates and hand over the amounts to the SPM Sri K.Siva Sankar and got their passbooks back after making deposit entries by the SPM.......by his above acts violated the provisions of Rule-4(1) of FHB Volume-I read with Rule-29 of Postal Manual Volume-VI Part-III, etc."
vi. As per the OA, in the 1st sitting itself, the applicant admitted the Article of Charge-II, as it had occurred due to pressure of work, without his knowledge. It is, further, submitted that the Inquiry Officer (IO) denied reasonable opportunity to the CO and conducted the inquiry in gross violation of the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice. On the Inquiry Report supplied to the applicant, he submitted his written statement of defence, dt.21.07.2015, inter alia, highlighting mainly the following defence points -
a. The prosecution witnesses, namely, Smt.Prameela Devi, MPKBY Agent, S,Mastan Basha, GDS packer, and S.Khaja Mohiddin, GDS Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.08.29 10:27:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA.No.488/2017 MD, hatched a conspiracy against the applicant and involved him in a false case by resorting to forgery of documents / records.
b. The three ASLAAS-6 were not handed over to the SPM and there is no evidence that they were handed over to him. Moreover, the three ASLAAS-6 do not bear the signature of the SPM/Applicant.
c. The Aslaas-6/records submitted to the SPM were sent to the Pulivendula HO, the Head Post Office did not raise any objection, which shows that there was no lapse on the part of the SPM/Applicant.
d. The Aslaas-6 forms and the RD pass books, contain the hand writing of others, but not of the applicant. When this was pointed out to the 3rd Respondent, he did not take any action to get them verified by the hand writing expert. Had it been done, the real culprit would have been booked.
e. The Aslaas-6 forms, containing the entry of 29 RD accounts, were included in the evidence, subsequently, in order to save the real culprits.
vii. It is also submitted that R3/Disciplinary Authority (D.A.) has not examined the oral and documentary evidence independently and impartially, nor has he considered the contentions of the applicant against the report of the Inquiry Officer. The D.A., relying upon the report of the Inquiry Officer, has awarded very heavy and disproportionate penalty to the applicant, vide memo No.F4/1/2010- 11, dt.01.08.2015, which reads as follows:
"...reduced by one stage from a pay of Rs.10960 + Rs.2400 GP to a pay of Rs.10570 + Rs.2400 GP in the time scale of pay of Rs.5200-20200 + GP 2400/- for a period of 2 years with effect from 1.8.2015. It is further directed that Sri K Siva Sankar, Postal Assistant Proddatur HO will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of his period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The period of suspension from 23.11.2010 to 18.03.2011 is treated as such for all purposes."Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.08.29 10:27:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA.No.488/2017 viii. It is pleaded that, though the applicant was aggrieved with the penalty awarded to him, he could not submit his appeal against the said penalty due to health and domestic problems. He has, however, preferred a revision petition, dt.23.11.2015, to the 1st Respondent, on the following grounds, among others -
a. Applicant has not received the Aslaas-6 and the 29 RD accounts with the amount mentioned in the charge memo.
b. The signature and hand writing appearing in Aslaas-6 and RD Pass Books were not of the applicant. They were forged by the MPKBY Agent with the connivance of office GDS Packer and GDS MD. Had these records been sent to the handwriting expert, the truth would have come to light, and the real culprits would have been caught. But this was not done, deliberately.
c. Under pressure, the applicant credited Rs.33,000/-, on the promise of refund. Thus, there was no loss to the department.
d. The inquiry was conducted in a biased manner, violating the statutory provisions.
e. The disciplinary authority has brought in new matter, without giving opportunity to rebut the same.
f. The penalty awarded is unusually heavy and disproportionate to the gravity of offence.
The 1st respondent did not consider the contentions of the applicant and has mechanically rejected the petition, vide memo No.ST/VP-
KSS/KNL/2015, dt.10.03.2017, without going into the evidence or merits of the case.
3. Grounds advanced by the applicant are as follows:
i. The action of the 3rd respondent in awarding the heavy and disproportionate penalty will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay, without establishing the main charge Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.08.29 10:27:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA.No.488/2017 against the applicant, and without considering the contentions and evidence on record.
ii. The MPKBY agent, with the connivance of the office GDS Packer and GDS MD, forged the signature and handwriting of the applicant, committed fraud and involved the applicant in a false case. The respondent authorities turned down the specific request for referring the case for the opinion of the handwriting expert.
iii. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry in a biased manner, violating the principles of natural justice.
iv. The 3rd respondent failed to probe the forgery of signature and entries made in the records, including the RD Pass Books, in spite of specific request made by the applicant. He has also failed to make enquiries as to how the Aslaas-6 forms made their way into the official records, without the intervention of the Sub-Post Office.
v. The rules quoted in the charge memo are not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The applicant never violated these rules, nor the violation was proved by the respondent authorities. Therefore, the penalty is not at all justified and is liable to be set aside.
vi. The 3rd Respondent has not established Article-I. In fact, there is no evidence to prove this article of charge, in spite of which, the 3rd Respondent held the Article as proved and awarded very heavy penalty. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside.Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.08.29 10:27:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA.No.488/2017 vii. The action of the 1st Respondent / Appellate Authority, in rejecting the revision petition of the applicant, without evaluating the evidence and without considering the contentions of the applicant, is illegal, arbitrary and against the rules.
viii. The penalty awarded does not match the alleged irregularities which are not so serious as to award such a severe and disproportionate penalty. He has not committed any fraud or embezzlement nor indulged in any grave misconduct. The penalty, being disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, is liable to be set aside.
ix. It is submitted that, in the similar cases, various courts have either modified or set aside the disproportionate penalties. The following judgments have been relied upon by the applicant -
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 the 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) Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.08.29 10:27:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA.No.488/2017 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.
4. On notice, Respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows:
i. The applicant, Sri K.Siva Sankar, PA, Pulivendla HO, while working as Sub Postmaster, Vemula SO, under Pulivendla HO, during the period from 26.03.2010 to 20.08.2010, accepted deposits, as shown below, from the MPKBY Agent, Smt.Pramelamma, CA No.260411, on 30.04.2010, and acknowledged receipt of Rs.30403-20, in cash [Rs.10000/- + Rs.10000+172 and Rs.9970+172.20 in the Aslaas-6], made entries of deposits in the respective Recurring Deposit Scheme passbooks, with dated initials, duly impressing date stamps also in the passbooks, but failed to account for the said deposits, on or after 30.04.2010, and the amounts were misappropriated for his personal use :-
Sl.No. Name of the Date of No. of Amount shown MPKBY Agent deposit Accounts in Aslass 1 Smt.A.Prameela 30.04.2010 15 Rs.10000+89 Devi, CA No.26-411 2 -do- 30.04.2010 12 Rs.10000+172 3 -do- 30.04.2010 12 Rs.9970+172.20 ii. The applicant, while working in the aforesaid capacity, during the aforesaid period, accepted RPLI premium amounts from the following insurants, on the dates noted against each, and made entries Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.08.29 10:27:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA.No.488/2017 of the amounts in the premium receipt books with date stamp impressions, but failed to account for the amounts, on or after the dates of transactions, as mentioned, hereunder, and the entire amount was misappropriated for his personal use :-
Sl. RPLI Name of the Sum Premium Total amount No. Policy Insurant Assured amount of non credit Number 1 157628 C.Anjaneyulu 1,00,000 230*4=920+ 938/-
DF Rs.18 (4 months) 2 306986 A.Siva Prasad 50,000 31 (1 month) 318/- 3 153654 A.Prameela 1,00,000 285*2=570 570/-
Devi (2 months)
4 AKR- A.Nageswara 20,000 131*2=262 262/-
6747 Rao (2 months)
iii. In this connection, the applicant was placed under suspension, on
22.11.2010 (A/N). His suspension was revoked on 18.03.2011. Based on the documentary evidence, a charge sheet, under Rule-14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, was issued to him on 28.08.2014. In response to the charge sheet, the defence representation of the applicant, dt.24.09.2014, was received at the office of R-3, on 25.09.2014.
Having accepted the charges levelled against him, in respect of Article-II, and having denied the charges levelled against him in respect of Article-I, the Disciplinary Authority/ R-3 decided to conduct detailed inquiry, as per the provisions contained in Rule-14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
iv. The first sitting was held on 22.10.2014 for the preliminary hearing.
During the sitting, the charged official accepted the charge framed in Article-II and denied the charge framed in Article-I. Detailed inquiry was conducted by the IO, who gave him reasonable opportunity to Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.08.29 10:27:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA.No.488/2017 defend himself. The Inquiry Officer, on conclusion of the inquiry, submitted his report, on 01.07.2015. The said IO Report was delivered to the applicant on 03.07.2015, with direction to submit his defence on IO report within 15 days from the date of receipt of IO report. The applicant sought time for ten more days for the same. He was allowed to submit his defence by 22.07.2015.
v. After going through the charge sheet, PO Brief, IO Report, and all other connected records of the case and based on the gravity of the case, final proceedings were issued by R3 on 01.08.2015 and the applicant was awarded the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage, as above, for a period of 2 years, w.e.f. 01.08.2015. It was further directed that the applicant will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that, on the expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.
vi. The applicant preferred a petition to the Chief Postmaster General, Vijayawada / R1 and the same was rejected by the CPMG, vide memo No.ST/VP-KSSS/KNL/2015, dt.10.03.2017.
vii. Respondents have submitted that, over a news item published in the "Andhra Jyothi", Telugu Daily, on 09.08.2010, regarding alleged loss of cash amounting to Rs.1 lakh, R3 directed the Inspector Posts, Pulivndla Sub Division, to carry out Past Work Verification (PWV for short) of Vemula SO. During the PWV, it was noticed that, on 30.04.2010, MPKBY Agent, Smt.A.Prameela Devi, had submitted 7 ASLAAS-6 schedules to the SPPM, Vemula SO, out of which 4 were Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.08.29 10:27:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA.No.488/2017 accounted for. The remaining 3 schedules for Rs.30,403.20/- were not accounted for. The applicant while working as Sub Postmaster, Vemula, had accepted the deposits from the MPKBY Agent, Smt.Prameelamma, on 30.04.2010, and had acknowledged the receipt of cash in the Aslaas-6, made entries of deposits in the RD passbooks, but had failed to account for the said deposits and misappropriated the same.
viii. The Inspector Posts, Pulivendla, who had carried out the Past Work Verification, confirmed the fraud of Rs.32491/- at the Vemula Sub Post Office. The applicant voluntarily credited an amount of Rs.35,335/-, including the normal interest and the penal interest, for the loss caused to the Department.
ix. The argument put forth by the applicant that "the then Supdt. of Post Offices satisfied with his explanation and evidence on record and closed the case in the year 2010", has been denied by the Respondents. The case was not closed by the higher authorities, since the WP filed by the applicant was still pending, in this case. The allegation of the applicant that two false and fictitious allegations were mentioned in the charge sheet is also not correct, since the applicant himself has admitted Article-II in his defence representation, in reply to the charge sheet as well as during the preliminary sitting and the detailed enquiry. The charges framed against the applicant were proved beyond doubt. The averment of the applicant that, due to pressure of work, without his knowledge, he had admitted the charge cannot be accepted as, in reply to the charge Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.08.29 10:27:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 OA.No.488/2017 sheet and during the preliminary sitting, both the times, he admitted the charge in respect of Article-II. Only after examining all the records and based on the documentary evidence, R3 issued the final proceedings. Based on the gravity of the case, the applicant was awarded the above punishment. The applicant preferred a petition, dt.23.11.2015, to R1 who, after perusing all the records, rejected it.
x. It is argued by the Respondents that the applicant is trying to throw the blame on the GDS Packer and the MPKBY Agent. The applicant, by making such an argument, is not realising that all the allegations put forth by him will ultimately show his own negligence in respect of his duties as SPM and, ultimately, make him responsible for the loss caused to the Department, as he gave scope to them to do the mischief, because of his careless attitude as SPM.
xi. The version of the applicant that no inquiries were made into the signature available on the 3 ASLAAS, dt.30.04.3020, is rebutted by the respondents who contend that the applicant, as the head of the office, was responsible for the signatures available on the 3 ASLAAS and for the date stamp impressed in the RD Pass Books.
All the averments put forth by the applicant are nothing but a cover up for the misappropriation done by him. The applicant should have observed the signatures in the RD pass books when the same were received on 31.05.2010, when subsequent transaction took place.Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.08.29 10:27:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 OA.No.488/2017 xii. For misappropriation of public money, the applicant was awarded the punishment, which is very much commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
5. Heard both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly laid down that the role of Courts and Tribunals is very limited in respect of review of the action taken by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority in matters pertaining to disciplinary proceedings. In the seminal judgment in B.C.Chaturvedi, it has been observed as follows:
"13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co- extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718:
AIR 1964 SC 364: (1964) 1 LLJ 38], this Court held at page 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
7. In Parma Nanda vs. State of Haryana and Others (1989 (2), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
'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 Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.08.29 10:27:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 OA.No.488/2017 for that of the authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is malafide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern itself 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.
The Apex Court in UT of Dadra & Nagar Haveli vs. Gulabhia M.Lad, (2010) 5 SCC, held that -
"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 this Court held:
"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".
8. It is worth noting that the applicant / charged officer had not only admitted Article-II but also Article-I of the charge memo. On receipt of the impugned charge memo, dt.28.08.2014 (Ann.A-I), in the written representation, dt.24.09.2014 (Ann.A-II), he has submitted as follows -
"Regarding the article 1, .......I am not admitting this charge directly but admitting the supervisory and other lapses.
Regarding the article 2, as I have already accepted non credits of the amounts, I admit the charge.
But I humbly beg to submit that as an young boy and having no knowledge of the consequences, incorrectly I have committed the mistakes. I prey pardon and assure the SPOs that I will be very cautious and careful and much devotion to work and guard against such mistakes in future." (emphasis added) Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.08.29 10:27:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 17 OA.No.488/2017 In view of the above, the rest of his arguments appear to be an afterthought.
9. He admitted his lapses even in his Defence Statement, dt.21.07.2015, against the IO Report. He was punished, vide proceedings, dt.01.08.2015. In his petition, dt.23.11.2015, he has stated that -
"....I could not submit my appeal against the punishment awarded to me by the SPOs Praddatur vide Memo cited above, in time due to the circumstances beyond my control on account of domestic problems. I am therefore submitting this Petition for sympathetic consideration."
This petition was also examined, in detail, before it was rejected by the order, dt.10.03.2017, of R3.
10. Having gone through the records and arguments of the counsels on both the sides, we find no infirmity in the procedure adopted during the enquiry. In the light of the admission of the applicant / CO, the penalty also appears to be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct involving misappropriation of public money which was made good by the applicant on its detection during verification by the Inspector Posts.
11. The OA is, therefore, dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
20.08.2025
/ps/
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA 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= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.08.29 10:27:32+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0