Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
V K Awasthi vs Union Of India on 16 May, 2025
O.A. No. 1399 of 2016 (Reserved on 25.04.2025) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad This the _16th _day of May, 2025 Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J) Original Application No. 1399 of 2016 Vinod Kumar Awasthi S/o Sri Babu Ram Awasthi R/o 1022 Machhariya road Kanpur-208021.
........... Applicant.
By Advocate: Shri S.M.A. Naqvi.
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary of Communication Dak Bhawan, Department of Posts New Delhi-110001.
2. The Director Postal Services O/O PMG Kanpur 208001.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Post offices Kanpur (City) division Kanpur 208001.
........... Respondents By Advocate: Shri V.K. Shukla.
Order The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of the impugned orders dated 26.02.2015 (Annexure SHAKUNTALA VERMA 1 O.A. No. 1399 of 2016 A-4) and 26.10.2015 (Annexure A-2), passed by respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2 respectively, whereby the penalty of "withholding of one increment for one year without cumulative effect" was imposed and subsequently upheld. The applicant also seeks all consequential benefits. Accordingly, the applicant prays for the following reliefs:-
"(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 26.02.2015((ANNEXURE A-4) & 26.10.2015 (ANNEXURE A-2) passed by the respondent No-3 and respondent no-2 respectively with all the consequential benefits.
(b) Issue any order/direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(c) Award the cost of petition to the applicant."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as a Gramin Dak Sewak under the Kanpur Cantt Head Post Office. He was subsequently selected as a Postman through a departmental examination in 2006 and posted at I.I.T. Kanpur. Thereafter, upon clearing the Postal Assistant Examination in 2011, he was posted at Sarsaul Delivery Sub Office (DSO), where he joined on 10.09.2012. On 28.10.2013, the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (Tour) [ASP(T)] visited the Sarsaul Post Office and sought records and SHAKUNTALA VERMA 2 O.A. No. 1399 of 2016 cash. The then Sub Postmaster (SPM), Shri S.N. Gupta, allegedly refused to hand over the same and later returned with a medical certificate backdated to 26.10.2013. The ASP(T) took the attendance register and the Sub Office Account to the Divisional Office for reporting the incident. It is alleged that Shri S.N. Gupta prepared a backdated charge report dated 26.10.2013 and directed the applicant to take over as SPM. The applicant, however, contends that he assumed charge only on 28.10.2013 (A/N), under candlelight due to a power outage, and that there was no formal handing over of cash. The SPM allegedly fled after placing the cash box key on the table. On 29.10.2013, the ASP(T) and ASP(Establishment) visited the post office and detected a cash shortage of ₹1,191.65, which was immediately reported to the Superintendent. The applicant's statement was recorded on the same day, and disciplinary action was initiated against Shri S.N. Gupta, who was suspended on 30.10.2013. The applicant was telephonically directed to deposit the shortfall amount, which he did on 22.01.2014. He was subsequently issued a charge sheet vide Memo dated 07.04.2014. Although the applicant was allowed to inspect some SHAKUNTALA VERMA 3 O.A. No. 1399 of 2016 documents on 20.02.2015, he was denied access to the disciplinary file of Shri S.N. Gupta on the ground of irrelevance. The applicant further alleges that his defence statement was obtained under duress and without adequate time for preparation.
3. The applicant challenges the penalty order dated 26.02.2015 primarily on the ground that no inquiry, as contemplated under Rule 16(1)(b) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, was conducted, despite his written request dated 22.02.2015 seeking such an inquiry. He contends that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the following material aspects:-
(i) The rules invoked against him (Rules 45, 46, 84, and 98) are inapplicable, as they pertain to formal transfers or gazetted officers.
(ii) He assumed charge as SPM only on 28.10.2013 (A/N), under exceptional medical circumstances, and not on 26.10.2013 as alleged.
(iii) No formal letter confirming the charge was issued by him.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 4 O.A. No. 1399 of 2016
(iv) The ASP(T), an eyewitness, had already reported the misconduct of the then SPM, who was suspended and punished accordingly.
(v) The Articles of Charge I and II are inconsistent with each other, particularly regarding the date on which the applicant allegedly assumed charge.
(vi) The penalty order was issued even before the deadline for submission of the defence statement had expired, indicating procedural impropriety.
4. The applicant preferred an appeal on 07.04.2015 against the penalty order dated 26.02.2015, asserting that he was not functioning as SPM on 28.10.2013 and that the then SPM was still in charge, as corroborated by the ASP(T)'s report. He further alleged that the Divisional Office's failure to verify monthly Sub Office Account statements contributed to the irregularity, and the blame was arbitrarily shifted onto him. The appeal was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 26/27.10.2015 (Annexure A-2), using standard/formulaic language and without adequate consideration of the grounds raised. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 5 O.A. No. 1399 of 2016
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a counter affidavit along with a para-wise reply was filed on 11.01.2017, and argued that the applicant himself informed the Divisional Office through his letter dated 26.10.2013 that he had taken over charge as Sub Postmaster, Sarsaul, due to the sudden illness of the regular incumbent. However, when the ASPO (Tour) visited the office on 28.10.2013, the applicant stated that the records and cash were still with Shri S.N. Gupta. In his statement dated 29.10.2013, the applicant admitted to having signed the charge report under pressure. These inconsistent versions, according to the respondents, reflect an attempt to mislead the authorities. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, culminating in the imposition of a minor penalty of withholding of one increment for one year without cumulative effect. The applicant's appeal was duly considered and rejected by the appellate authority.
6. It was further argued that the penalty was proportionate and imposed following due process. The applicant's own communication substantiated the assumption of charge on SHAKUNTALA VERMA 6 O.A. No. 1399 of 2016 26.10.2013, and his subsequent contradictory statements undermine his defence. The respondents contend that the applicant failed to properly maintain the SO account and was jointly responsible for the cash shortage of ₹1,191.65, which he later deposited. Given that the case was based on documentary evidence, a formal inquiry was not warranted. Adequate opportunity was provided to the applicant to submit his defence, and the punishment was imposed in accordance with the relevant rules. The discrepancy in date within the punishment order was attributed to a typographical error. The respondents thus justified the action taken against the applicant, relying on the available records and applicable rules.
7. The applicant, through his rejoinder affidavit dated 10.02.2017, reiterated that no formal charge of Sub Postmaster, Sarsaul Post Office, was handed over to him on 26.10.2013. He relies upon an RTI reply dated 23.01.2017, which includes the reports of the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (Tour) dated 28.10.2013 and 29.10.2013, to contend that the documents marked CA-1, CA-2, and CA-3 were prepared on 28.10.2013 but backdated to 26.10.2013. He further submitted SHAKUNTALA VERMA 7 O.A. No. 1399 of 2016 that his signatures on these documents bear the stamp of 28.10.2013 and that the use of the phrase "सभाले है " does not amount to a formal or legal assumption of charge.
8. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 26.02.2015 was passed mechanically, without due consideration of relevant documents including Annexures RA-1 and RA-2 (allegedly withheld by the respondents), and that the disciplinary authority failed to record any reasons for dispensing with the inquiry under Rule 16(1)(b) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant also points out that disciplinary proceedings are pending against the then SPM, Shri S.N. Gupta, in which he is cited as a departmental witness. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court dated 19.04.2016 in C.M.W.P. No. 1415 of 2015, Bishwamber Singh Gaur v. Union of India, wherein it was held:-
"In the instant case, the Rule - 11, 14 and 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rule 1965, Rule 11 provided for imposition of penalties i.e. Minor and major penalties. Recovery from pay of Government employee comes under the heading of minor penalties. Rule 14 prescribed the procedure for holding an enquiry, where major penalty is required to imposed. The procedure involved for imposition of minor penalty is contemplated under rule
16. The Rule-16 (1) (b) indicates that no order imposing SHAKUNTALA VERMA 8 O.A. No. 1399 of 2016 any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (iv) of Rule- 11 shall be made except after holding an enquiry in manner laid down in sub rule (3) to (23) of rule 14. In every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such enquiry is necessary. It necessarily follows that a disciplinary authority is required to pass an order holding that such an enquiry is essential unless it is dispensed with."........." No such order of the disciplinary authority has been placed indicating that the enquiry as contemplated under Rule -14 has been dispensed with. In the absence of holding an oral enquiry, the charges leveled against the respondent have not been proved and therefore, no penalty could be imposed under Rule-11."
The applicant contends that the ratio of the above judgment squarely applies to the present case.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that it was the duty of the regular Sub Postmaster at Sarsaul Post Office to maintain and verify the SO Account, including the monthly PA- 17(a) compilation. The respondents have not specifically rebutted this mandatory responsibility. Therefore, the charge under Article II is misconceived and untenable. The appellate order dated 27.10.2015 is also challenged on the ground that it lacks due application of mind, particularly in relation to Rule 16(1)(b) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which has either been ignored or misapplied.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 9 O.A. No. 1399 of 2016
10. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the applicant had formally taken charge as SPM on 26.10.2013 (A/N), as per his own letter and Annexure C-1, which bears his signature. The RTI response relied upon by the applicant does not negate this. The disciplinary proceedings were rightly initiated for the applicant's lapses, including failure to maintain and verify the SO Account daily. Invocation of Rule 16(1)(b) was appropriate, and the cited Hon'ble High Court judgment was factually distinguishable. The allegation of mechanical passing of orders is denied.
11. Heard Shri S.M.A. Naqvi, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the material available on record.
12. Having carefully considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the records, I am of the opinion that the present Original Application is devoid of merit. The records clearly indicate that the applicant had, by his own admission, taken over charge as Sub Postmaster on 26.10.2013 (A/N). This is evident from his handwritten communication of the same SHAKUNTALA VERMA 10 O.A. No. 1399 of 2016 date addressed to the authorities, which is duly signed by the applicant and reads as under:-
"Charge Report - S.P.M. Ship मा णत कया जाता है क आज दo 26.10.13 को A/N म उपडाकपाल सरसौल एस.एन. गु ता को अचानक त बयत खराब होने क वजह से थानीय च क सालय वारा च क सा माणप तुत के उपरांत डाक सहायक सरसौल ी वनोद अव थी को SPM, Ship तथा office का स पूण चाज स प दया है ।"
13. The applicant has not convincingly rebutted the presumption arising from the above letter, except to assert that it was signed under pressure. However, his subsequent statements dated 28.10.2013 and 29.10.2013, which are mutually contradictory, further undermine his defence. The applicant's statement dated 29.10.2013 further confirms this position, wherein he admitted:-
" ल खत बयान ी वनोद कुमार अव थी डाक सहायक सरसौल कानपुर नगर उ लगभग 40 वष सेवा काल 6 ½ वष म वनोद कुमार अव थी डाक सहायक सरसौल उ लगभग 40 वष सेवा काल 6 ½ वष यह बयान करता हूँ क दनांक 28-10-2013 को सहायक अधी क (भमण) वारा कायालय छोड़ने के प चात ी एस.एन. गु ता कायालय छोड़कर चले गये। तथा लगभग ③तीन घंटे बाद आये, और आदे श पुि तका पर चाज लेने हे तु आदे शत कया। आदे शपुि तका दनांक 26-10-2013 म नोट क गयी थी, इस लए मने Book Date म ह ता र करने से मना कर दया तथा दनांक 28-10-2013 म ह ता र बनाया, चाज रपोट म उ ह ने मेरे वारा जबरद ती ह ता र कराया तथा तुरंत मंडल य कायालय को पंजीकृत डाक से भेज दया। इसके वारा दनाँक 28-10-2013 का हसाब भी नह ं मलाया गया था, चाबी रखकर SHAKUNTALA VERMA 11 O.A. No. 1399 of 2016 चले गये और रात म मेरे वारा हसाब मलाया नह ं जा सका, सुबह 29/10/2013 को मेरे वारा जब हसाब मलाया गया, तो 0 1191=65 कम मले। जब मैने उप डाकघर लेखा भरने के लए उठाया तो दे खा क लेखा 29/7/2013 के प चात भरा ह नह ं गया है । इस आशय ुट पुि तका EB40 दनांक 28-10-2013 को नोट क गयी। यह बयान मैने अपनी इ छा से बना कसी दबाव के दया है ।
दनांक-29-10-2013 Sd/-
वनोद कुमार अव थी डाक सहायक सरसौल कानपुर"
14. Furthermore, the reports of the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (Tour) dated 28.10.2013 and 29.10.2013 corroborate that a cash shortage of ₹1,191.65/- was detected, which the applicant subsequently deposited. While the applicant seeks to rely on the use of the phrase "सभाले है " to argue that no formal assumption of charge took place, I am of the opinion that such a narrow construction is untenable in light of the available documentary evidence. In the context of official correspondence and discharge of duties, the said expression is sufficient to establish assumption of responsibility.
15. The contention regarding non-holding of an inquiry under Rule 16(1)(b) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is untenable, as the disciplinary authority, having formed the opinion that the case SHAKUNTALA VERMA 12 O.A. No. 1399 of 2016 did not warrant a formal inquiry under Rule 14, proceeded under Rule 16 treating it as a minor penalty proceeding. The applicant was afforded an opportunity to inspect documents and submit his defence, and no procedural lapse of such gravity as to vitiate the proceedings has been demonstrated.
16. The penalty of withholding of one increment for one year without cumulative effect cannot be said to be disproportionate, nor has it been demonstrated to have been imposed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellate authority has also given cogent reasons for rejecting the appeal, which do not warrant interference by this Tribunal.
17. In view of the foregoing analysis and upon due consideration of the material on record, I find no procedural or substantive infirmity in the impugned orders dated 26.02.2015 and 26.10.2015. The Original Application, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajnish Kumar Rai) Member (J) /Shakuntala/ SHAKUNTALA VERMA 13