Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Amit Kumar vs Post Punjab Circle on 14 July, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No. 60/284/2022
Reserved on: 14.07.2025
Pronounced on: 29.07.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
Amit Kumar S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar, aged 42 years, working as
Postal Assistant, Department of Posts, Hoshiarpur Head Office,
Hoshiarpur-146001 (Group 'C').
...Applicant
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Balwinder Singh)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of
India, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. (Email:
[email protected])
2. Chief Postmaster General, Punjab West Region, Sandesh
Bhawan, Sector 17E, Chandigarh-160017 (Email:
[email protected])
3. Director Postal Services, Punjab West Region, Sector 17,
Chandigarh-160017 (Email: [email protected])
4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hoshiarpur Division,
Hoshiarpur-146001. (Email: [email protected]).
...Respondents
Digitally signed by
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. K.K. Thakur along with Ms. Monika Kondal.
Satyan Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
arayan Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b
0bac4a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181
f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006,
a
S=RAJASTHAN,
SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b0
2de09453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5
b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana
Vanapa Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
lli Date: 2025.07.29 14:32:44+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0
2
ORDER
Per: HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A):
1. This O.A has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) Quash the order dated 30.09.2019 (Annexure A1) vide which the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the penalty of withholding of one increment of pay of applicant for a period of one year without cumulative effect, based on charges which are not at all proved and action is based on conjectures and surmises and not tenable in the eyes of law.
(B) Quash the order dated 20.10.2020 (Annexure A2) to the extent the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant against the impugned order (Annexure A1) and upheld the penalty imposed on charges, which are not proved at all and based on conjectures and surmises and as such is not tenable in the eyes of law.
(C) Issue direction to the respondents to refund the amount of reduced pay and allowances with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of reduction to the actual date of payment."
2. The background of the case of the applicant in its OA has submitted the following:-
I. The applicant submitted a complaint in June, 2019 (Annexure A-3) to Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh, that during 2016 an irregular appointment was made by Inspector West Sub Division inasmuch as Sh. Manpreet Singh who was not eligible for the post of GDSMC and was at Sr. No.3/3, was appointed due to his father being working as Office Assistant in Divisional Office, Hoshiarpur. The resignation of first candidate was accepted in back date and the name of second candidate was ignored without giving any intimation to the candidate. The record of resignation submitted by the first candidate Digitally signed by Satyan duly accepted by the appointing authority is not available in office file.
Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, arayan Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b 0bac4a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181 f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, a S=RAJASTHAN, Appointment made in back date as prescribed period was over one year SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b0 2de09453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5 b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapa Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
lli Date: 2025.07.29 14:32:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 3 and merit list was totally ignored for undue favour. The appointing authority made appointment at Branch Post Office during his inspection of visit to BO and appointment file was with him, but registered letter on same day dispatched from Hoshiarpur HO which is not possible. Higher authorities were well aware of his and as such an enquiry may be made in the irregularity. The said complaint was not taken action/cognizance by the respondents and they wanted to punish the applicant on one way or the other.
II. It is submitted by the applicant that the applicant was served with a charge sheet vide OM dated 11.7.2019 (copy enclosed and marked as Annexure A-4 to this Original Application) under rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, with the allegations that during the period March, 2015, he telephonically asked Shri Rishi Pal, the then Complaint Inspector, office of SSPOs, Hoshiarpur, to send proposal for filling up the post of GDSMC Gobindpur Khun Khun EDBO in account with Hariana SO under Dasuya H.O. On receipt of proposal, he processed proposal in file and managed to get approval of then SPO, Hoshiarpur for filling up the post whereas no such post was existing as per Establishment Register.
Thus, he has failed to maintain absolute integrity and failed to maintain devotion to duty by violating the provision of Rule 3 (1) (i) & 3(1)() of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
III. The applicant submitted an application on 15.7.2019 to supply him 10 documents relating to his disciplinary case or preparation of defence. Vide letter dated 17.07.2019, he was asked to visit office for examination of case excluding investigation report. The file was shown to applicant which was not having documents asked for by applicant and instead he was shown which were not useful at all for his defence. The applicant Digitally signed by Satyan Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, arayan Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b 0bac4a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181 f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, a S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b0 2de09453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5 b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapa Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
lli Date: 2025.07.29 14:32:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 4 again asked for documents. He was informed vide letter dated 8/2017 that there is no such provision under Rule 16 for supply of documents. IV. The applicant submitted a reply dated 14.09.2019 (Annexure A-5) that charge is not on specific points. The permission was granted by Senior Superintendent Post Offices, Hoshiarpur and it was not secured. The file was put up to the competent authority for approval. The competent authority after his satisfaction approved the file. The communication was also signed by the competent authority after his satisfaction on the subject. The permission was granted for which the permission was sought by Shri Rishi Pal, the then Inspector IP West Hoshiarpur. In so far as Article 2 is concerned, the recruitment was made on the basis of approval and repulsion made by Shri Rishi Pal, the then SDI Hoshiarpur West. The applicant thought that the then ASDI Shri Rishi Pal might have made a request for securing approval / permission after checking the records. Since provision of Rule 77 of Postal Vol. III has not been complied with by disciplinary authority, the proceedings are illegal. The respondents have passed order dated 30.9.2019 (Annexure A-1) on the premise that Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, does not make it incumbent on the part of disciplinary authority that it should give the accused official an opportunity to inspect the relevant records provided no formal enquiry is considered necessary by the disciplinary authority and as such his claim has been rejected and penalty of withholding of one increment of pay for a period of one year with cumulative effect which will take effect on expiry of currency period already imposed penalty, has been imposed upon him.
Further, it is submitted by the applicant that the applicant submitted an appeal dated 14.11.2019 (Annexure A-6) against the Digitally signed by Satyan Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, arayan punishment order dated 30.9.2019. The stand of department that there Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b 0bac4a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181 f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, a S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b0 2de09453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5 b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapa Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
lli Date: 2025.07.29 14:32:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 5 is no provision in Rule 16 of supply of documents is not correct. He has been shown only those documents which are not useful for preparation of his defence. No certificate was obtained from him as to which documents have been shown to him. The exercise was a mere eye wash and hurdle in the natural justice. The ten documents asked for by him were not shown to him. He was denied access to documents which is in violation of natural justice. He explained that in this case the then SPOs Hoshiarpur and Shri Parkash, IP Sh. Ashwani Kumar the then office supervisor Hoshiarpur Division Office and Shri Rishi Pal IP Ro Chandigarh were involved and no action has been taken against any of them. He may also be given a personal hearing.
V. The appeal of applicant has been rejected vide order dated 20.10.2020 (Annexure A-2) by a non speaking order and as such the same is illegal and arbitrary. On the same set of facts others have been let off whereas in case of applicant it was held that the charge is serious which is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. That action was also taken against Shri Parkash Singh, SPO Ferozepur Division. He submitted reply.
He was only given warning by mentioning that explanation submitted by him is not fully convincing and there is no malafide intention on his part. He was required to be more vigilant and careful. Approval for filling up any post should not be given without relevant records and he was supposed to know the rules and should use his powers diligently. He was given only a simple warning. Similarly, Shri Rishi Pal and Shri Ashwani Kumar vide orders dated 18.11.2019 (Annexure A/7) and dated 15.01.2020 (Annexure A/9) have been let off by issuing a warning to be more careful and vigilant vide above orders. VI.
Digitally signed by
It is further submitted by the applicant that the applicant submitted Satyan Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, arayan an application under Right to Information Act, 2005, for supply of Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b 0bac4a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181 f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, a S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b0 2de09453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5 b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapa Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
lli Date: 2025.07.29 14:32:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 6 documents which was supplied to him vide letter dated 20.04.2021 (Annexure A-10). The impugned orders are harsh, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, in violation of principles of natural justice and various provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
3. The applicant has submitted following Judgments in support of his arguments are as follows:-
i) M. Raghavelu Vs. Govt. of A.P. & Anr., reported in (1997) 10 Supreme Court Cases 779.
ii) Director General of Police & Ors. Vs. G. Dasayan, reported in (1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 407.
iii) Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 73.
iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Triveni Sharan Mishra, reported in (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 346.
v) Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj Vs. Bank of India & Ors., reported in (2019) 15 Supreme Court Cases 786.
vi) Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Singh, reported in (2013) 12 Supreme Court Cases 372.
4. Notice was issued to the respondents. The respondents filed written statement on 19.07.20227 wherein it is submitted as follows:
I. Initially the applicant was proceeded against under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 vide office Memo No.A/Complaint/II/1/2019-20, dated 11.07.2019. The said case was decided vide office memo dated 30.09.2019 by awarding a penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The applicant Amit Kumar preferred an appeal dated 14.11.2019 against the said penalty awarded to him and vide memo dated 20.10.2020, the worthy DPS, Punjab West Region, Chandgiarh has confirmed the orders of Sr. Supdt. Of Post office Hoshiarpur dated 30.09.2019 and disposed off Digitally signed by Satyan Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, arayan Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b 0bac4a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181 f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, a his appeal. A court of law is to carry out judicial review of the impugned S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b0 2de09453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5 b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapa Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
lli Date: 2025.07.29 14:32:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 7 orders, whereas the nature of pleadings of the applicant shows that he is inviting this Tribunal to act as an appellate authority which is not permissible and as such the OA deserves to be dismissed. II. In the case of "State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao' reported in (1975) 2 SCCC 557, has discussed the principles upon which disciplinary proceedings can be interfered by a Court of law. The aforesaid principles have been succinctly summed-up in State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Rattan Singh, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 491 and State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Supra), reported in (1975) 2 SCCC 557.
III. It is averred by the respondents that the Courts have held that equally, it is not open, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is "moral uprightness; honesty". It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values. The disciplinary authority as well as Appellate Authority has passed well reasoned orders which are liable to be upheld. Digitally signed by
Further, it is averred by the respondents that the appointment Satyan Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, arayan process was initiated by the applicant while working as OA "A branch", Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b 0bac4a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181 f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, a S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b0 2de09453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5 b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapa Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
lli Date: 2025.07.29 14:32:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 8 0/0 SPOS Hoshiarpur against the non existing post of GDS MC Gobindpur Khun Khun EDBO by calling telephonically the proposal from the then IP, West Hoshiarpur. As per the inquiry report, the applicant managed to get requisition for filling up the Post of GDS MC Gobindpur Khun Khun EDBO from Shri Rishi Pal the then IP West, Hoshiarpur and also managed to get approval from the then SPOs, Hoshiarpur for filling up the non existing post of GDS MC Gobindpur Khun Khun EDBO. The plea has no weight. As per the statement of Shri Rishi Pal the then IP West, Hoshiarpur, he was asked by the said Shri Amit Kumar phonically to send proposal for filling up the Post of GDS MC Gobindpur Khun Khun EDBO. The plea put forth by the Applicant is quite baseless. Rule 77 of Postal Manual Volume III clearly says:
"Rule 16 of the C.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1965 does not make it incumbent on the part of the disciplinary authority that it should give the accused official an opportunity to inspect the relevant records provided no formal enquiry is considered necessary by the disciplinary authority. If, however, an accused officer in such a case makes a request for permitting him to inspect the relevant records to enable him to submit his defence, the disciplinary authority may grant the necessary permission".
IV. The penalty has been imposed against applicant after considering all the facts of case. Documents related to Disciplinary action report against Sh. Parkash Singh, Sh. Ashwani Kumar and Sh. Rishi Pal was not available in this office records as SSPOs Hoshiarpur Division is not disciplinary authority in case of Sh. Parkash Singh Ex-SPO Hoshiarpur (officiating), Sh. Ashwani Kumar the then Office Supervisor Division Office, Hoshiarpur and Sh. Rishi Pal the then Inspector Post West Sub Dn (officiating). Therefore, the respondents prayed that the impugned orders are legal and liable to be upheld.
5. The applicant has submitted rejoinder reiterating similar facts as stated in OA.
Digitally signed bySatyan Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, arayan Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b 0bac4a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181 f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, a S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b0 2de09453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5 b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapa Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
lli Date: 2025.07.29 14:32:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 9
6. Heard both the counsels and have gone through the averments made by both the parties.
7. In the present case, as per record, the respondent authorities, have taken action against all the officers/officials responsible for the said appointment and other than the applicant, they have been awarded punishment after considering their response to the show cause notice issued by the respondents. In the case of applicant, minor punishment under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect has been awarded, which is being agitated by the applicant as excessive with respect to other officials/officers and have sought the relief in the present OA. The punishment of the official has been upheld at the appellate stage (Annexure A2) with a well reasoned order dealing with each and every point he has raised before the Appellate Authority.
8. It is well settled law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of 'B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. UOI & Ors., reported in (1995) 8 JT 65 (SC), the relevant paragraphs which reads as follows:-
"........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. It 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.............."
9. The perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority Digitally signed by Satyan Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT (Annexure A/9) clearly shows that it is a well reasoned order dealing with OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, arayan Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b 0bac4a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181 f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, a S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b0 all the observations and objections raised by the applicant in his appeal 2de09453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5 b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapa Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
lli Date: 2025.07.29 14:32:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 10 against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. It has been observed by the Appellate Authority that the irregularity on the part of the applicant of making irregular appointment against the non-existing post of GDSMC, Gobindpur Khun Khun BO is grave in nature and needs to be dealt with exemplary punishment.
10. Further, in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of 'B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. UOI & Ors., reported in (1995) 8 JT 65 (SC), the Tribunal does not find any discrepancy. The Tribunal has very limited powers in dealing with the quantum of punishment awarded.
11. In view of the above, the OA filed by the applicant is found to be devoid of any merits and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sv/
Digitally signed by
Satyan Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
arayan Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b
0bac4a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181
f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006,
a
S=RAJASTHAN,
SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b0
2de09453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5
b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana
Vanapa Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
lli Date: 2025.07.29 14:32:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0