Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Ranajit Mondal vs Posts on 20 January, 2026
1 O.A./350/1683/2023 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA O.A./350/1683/2023 Date of Hearing:- 23/12/2025.
Date of Order:- 20/01/2026.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member.
Ranajit Mondal, son of Late Tarani Ranjan Mondal, aged about 50 years, working as Postal Assistant (Group 'C') at Park Street H.O. under Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Central Kolkata Division, at present residing at Village- Durlavpur, P.O- Uttar Ballavpur, P.S- Mandir Bazar, District- 24 Parganas (S).
...........Applicant
-Versus-
1. Union of India, service through the Secretary, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication & I.T., Dak Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, West Bengal Circle, Yogayog Bhawan, Kolkata- 700012.
3. The Postmaster General, North Bengal Region, Siliguri- 734001.
4. The Director of Postal Services, North Bengal Region, Siliguri- 734001.
5. Superintendent of Post Offices, Coochbehar Division, Coochbehar- 736101.
6. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Central Kolkata Division, Burabazar, Kolkata- 700007.
..........Respondents For the applicant(s) : Mr. J.R. Das (Counsel).
For the respondent(s) : Ms. D. Nag (Counsel).
O R D E R.
Per: Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member.
1. This matter is taken up by the Single Bench for disposal in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Chairman, CAT dated 10/09/2021 issued under Sub-Section (6) of Section 5 of the Digitally signed by Sambit Kumar Ganguly Sambit Kumar DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=7150, OID.2.5.4.65= 1336014722240550049cSCx8jy16P1KN, Phone= df66569e4aef09e8c9fffe11cd84300f3957e9e407509cd8b03c4ab74c00de89, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 02065415bb80bcbd7e94dd7f68fc7cc80240ce4f8e6f28a05df2a781b4e36f2e, CN=Sambit Kumar Ganguly Ganguly Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 13:45:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 2 O.A./350/1683/2023 Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and since no complicated question of law is involved.
2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-
"a) To set aside and quash impugned Memorandum No. F1-1/G/12/2019/Disc case (R.K. Mandal) dated 07.11.2022 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Coochbehar Division.
b) To set aside and quash impugned Disciplinary Order No. F1-1/G/12/2019/Disc case (R.K. Mandal) dated 05/07.07.2023 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Coochbehar Division.
c) To direct the respondents to refund the amount already recovered from the salary of the applicant.
d) Any other order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper.
e) An order directing quash and set aside of the Appellate Order dated 22-04-2024 by Director of Postal Services for PMG, North Bengal Division signed on 30-04-2024".
Facts of the Case.
3.1 Memorandum dated 07/11/2022 was issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Cooch Behar Division to the applicant informing him that it was proposed to take action against him under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (Annexure-A/1). The applicant was also informed, vide the said memorandum, that he could submit a representation against the said proposal.
3.2 In response to the aforesaid memorandum, the applicant had submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Cooch Behar Division vide his letter dated 23/11/2022. 3.3 The Superintendent of Post Offices, Cooch Behar Division, vide order dated 05/07/ 2023 (Annexure-A/3) had imposed the penalty of "Recovery Digitally signed by Sambit Kumar Ganguly Sambit Kumar DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=7150, OID.2.5.4.65= 1336014722240550049cSCx8jy16P1KN, Phone= df66569e4aef09e8c9fffe11cd84300f3957e9e407509cd8b03c4ab74c00de89, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 02065415bb80bcbd7e94dd7f68fc7cc80240ce4f8e6f28a05df2a781b4e36f2e, CN=Sambit Kumar Ganguly Ganguly Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 13:45:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 O.A./350/1683/2023 of the amount of Rs. 4,80,000/- only in 40 equal installments, i.e, Rs. 12,000 per month from his pay."
3.4 Thereafter, the applicant had submitted an appeal dated 09/08/2023 to the Appellate Authority against the aforesaid order dated 05/07/2023 of the Disciplinary Authority dated 05/07/2023. 3.5 The Director of Postal Services being the Appellate Authority, vide his order dated 22/04/2024 (Annexure RJ-1) reduced the penalty imposed upon the applicant by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Cooch Behar Division vide order dated 05/04/2023 upon the applicant from "Recovery of amount of Rs. 4,80,000/- only in 40 equal installments, i.e, Rs.
12,000 per month from his pay to "Recovery of amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- only with the same installments".
4. I have heard the Learned Counsel for both sides and have considered the material on record.
Submissions.
5. At hearing, the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the applicant are summarized below:-
5.1 At the material point of time, the applicant was posted as Postal Assistant at Mathurabagan (SO. As per Rule 75(1) of PoSB Manual (Vol-1), the Sub-Post Master was responsible for checking the BO daily A/c and for removal of excess cash from the BO's. The applicant, being a Postal Assistant, was not responsible at all for the irregular retention of excess cash at Shalkumarhat, BO on 02/10/2019, 16/10/2019 and 05/09/2019 as alleged by the Disciplinary authority.
5.2 As per Rule 75 (1) of the PoSB manual, verification of the balance of the account standing at the Branch Post Office is the responsibility of the Digitally signed by Sambit Kumar Ganguly Sambit Kumar DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=7150, OID.2.5.4.65= 1336014722240550049cSCx8jy16P1KN, Phone= df66569e4aef09e8c9fffe11cd84300f3957e9e407509cd8b03c4ab74c00de89, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 02065415bb80bcbd7e94dd7f68fc7cc80240ce4f8e6f28a05df2a781b4e36f2e, CN=Sambit Kumar Ganguly Ganguly Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 13:45:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 O.A./350/1683/2023 Branch Post Master/Sub-Post-Master and the applicant cannot be held responsible for the same.
5.3 The Disciplinary Authority ought to have conducted a Departmental Enquiry in order to establish the charges framed against him. Learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of OK Bharadwaj vs Union of India & Others, 2002 in support of his contention in this regard.
5.4 Learned Counsel referred to the instructions of the Director General of Postal Services as contained in letter dated 29/11/2021 regarding identification of subsidiary offenders and issue of orders by the Disciplinary Authorities for recovery of the loss from pay and allowance of such offenders.
6. At hearing, the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the respondents are summarized below:-
6.1 Due to the negligence in duty on part of the applicant, the GDSBPM, Shalkumarhat, BO had got ample opportunity to retain the excess cash at his Branch Office day after day and with the aid of such excess cash he had made huge withdrawals by forging the signature of account holders. The fraud committed by the GDSBPM at Shalkumarhat, BO was assessed at 13,60,872/- and this fraud was caused by the negligence on the part of Shri Ranajit Kumar Mondal (the applicant herein) who was then working as Postal Assistant, Mathurabagan, Sub-Division Office during the period of 29/11/2016 to 20/11/2021.
6.2 Shri Ranajit Kumar Mondal, (the applicant herein), was identified as a subsidiary offender since he did not follow the provisions of Rule 75 (1) and 75 (2) of PoSB manual, Volume-1 and had failed to keep a watch over Digitally signed by Sambit Kumar Ganguly Sambit Kumar DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=7150, OID.2.5.4.65= 1336014722240550049cSCx8jy16P1KN, Phone= df66569e4aef09e8c9fffe11cd84300f3957e9e407509cd8b03c4ab74c00de89, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 02065415bb80bcbd7e94dd7f68fc7cc80240ce4f8e6f28a05df2a781b4e36f2e, CN=Sambit Kumar Ganguly Ganguly Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 13:45:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 O.A./350/1683/2023 non-receipt of SB passbooks for interest posting at Mathurabagan, SO from Shalkumarhat, BO and he did not maintain the register as per the proforma in accordance with Rule 75(2) of PoSB manual, Volume-1 and had failed to place the same before SPM, Mathurabagan, SO. 6.3 Had the applicant acted as per instructions laid down in Rule 75(1) and Rule 75(2) as contained in PoSP manual, Volume-1, misappropriation of a huge amount of Government money could have been checked in time and the huge losses suffered by the Government could have been afforded. 6.4 The applicant had not requested the Disciplinary Authority for conducting a Departmental Enquiry for establishing the charges leveled against him vide memorandum dated 05/07/2023. As per Government, MHA notification dated 20/04/1968, there is a provision for enquiry under Rule 16(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, if the charged official requests for such an enquiry. DOPT OM dated 28/10/1985 leaves it to the discretion to the Disciplinary Authority to decide as to whether a Departmental Enquiry ought to be held in case of a proceeding initiated under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
6.5 The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of OK Bharadwaj vs Union of India & Others which had been relied upon by the applicant pertains to stopping of increments of pay with cumulative effect without holding any enquiry. However, in the instant matter, no increment with or without cumulative effect was withheld.
Findings.
7. A Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against the applicant, vide memorandum dated 07/11/2022. The statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior on which action was proposed to be taken Digitally signed by Sambit Kumar Ganguly Sambit Kumar DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=7150, OID.2.5.4.65= 1336014722240550049cSCx8jy16P1KN, Phone= df66569e4aef09e8c9fffe11cd84300f3957e9e407509cd8b03c4ab74c00de89, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 02065415bb80bcbd7e94dd7f68fc7cc80240ce4f8e6f28a05df2a781b4e36f2e, CN=Sambit Kumar Ganguly Ganguly Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 13:45:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 O.A./350/1683/2023 against the applicant annexed to the above mentioned memorandum is reproduced below:-
"Statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior on which action is proposed to be taken against Ranajit Kumar Mandal, the then PA, Mathurabagan SO under Cooch Behar Division, Cooch Behar, now PA, Cooch Behar H.O. Sri Ranajit Kumar Mandal while working as PA, Mathurabagan P.O. during period from 29.11.2016 to 20.11.2021 a fraud has been detected on 21.12.2019 at Shalkumarhat BO under Mathurabagan SO.
A tune of Rs. 9,58,478 (Nine lakh fifty eight thousand four hundred seventy eight) only (so far detected) has been misappropriated by the then BPM Shalkumarhat B.O. from customers account. If passbooks from Shalkumarhat BO had been called for annual interest posting in time the fraud might had been detected in early stage. More over non receipt of BO passbook from the stated BO has not been noted by Sri Mandal on error book and placed before the Sub-Postmaster concerned and did not maintain any special error book/register in this purpose.
Sl. No. Type of Account no. Date of last Total amount
account fraudulent involved at this
transaction account
1 SSA 239001043 15.11.2019 92000
2 SSA 239000676 28.8.2018 75000
3 SSA 239000474 2.8.2018 45000
4 SSA 239000832 5.12.2019 42000
Total 2,54,000
Above table depicted misappropriation at four nos of SSA accounts out of the fraud involved accounts standing at Shalkumarhat BO for which it is clearly seen that if Shri Mandal comply with the instruction contained in SB manual Vol-1 rule 75(1) 7 (2) the loss at Shalkumarhat Bo fraud case can be averted.
Digitally signed by Sambit Kumar Ganguly Sambit Kumar DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=7150, OID.2.5.4.65= 1336014722240550049cSCx8jy16P1KN, Phone= df66569e4aef09e8c9fffe11cd84300f3957e9e407509cd8b03c4ab74c00de89, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 02065415bb80bcbd7e94dd7f68fc7cc80240ce4f8e6f28a05df2a781b4e36f2e, CN=Sambit Kumar Ganguly Ganguly Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 13:45:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 O.A./350/1683/2023 Going through the BO Closing balance at Shalkumarhat BO it is seen as below:-
Sl. No. BO closing BO closing balance at Remark
balance at Shalkumarhat BO
Shalkumarhat
BO dtd.
1 3.10.2019 48425 No instruction found at
Bo slip for remove
excess cash
2 16.9.2019 44732 No instruction found at
Bo slip for remove
excess cash
3 5.9.2019 55526 No instruction found at
Bo slip for remove
excess cash
It is revealed that Shri Mandal paid no attention for excess BO cash balance and failed to place the matter before his supervisor.
Moreover, he failed to note the matter of retention of excess cash in BO slip dated 3.10.2019, 16.09.2019, 5.09.2019 as an instruction to the concerned BPM. By doing so Sri Mandal did not comply with the rule contained in PO manual volume VI Part III no. 63, 68(3).
Thus, by doing so, Sri Mandal, the then PA, Mathurabagan P.O, now PA, Cooch Behar H.O. violated provision of Rule 3(1)(i),(ii),(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
Signed by A.K. Gond Supdt. Of PO's Coochbehar Division Coochbehar- 736101".
8. The applicant has taken the ground that a regular Departmental Enquiry was not conducted by the Disciplinary Authority to establish the charge leveled against him and that such an enquiry ought to have been Digitally signed by Sambit Kumar Ganguly Sambit Kumar DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=7150, OID.2.5.4.65= 1336014722240550049cSCx8jy16P1KN, Phone= df66569e4aef09e8c9fffe11cd84300f3957e9e407509cd8b03c4ab74c00de89, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 02065415bb80bcbd7e94dd7f68fc7cc80240ce4f8e6f28a05df2a781b4e36f2e, CN=Sambit Kumar Ganguly Ganguly Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 13:45:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 O.A./350/1683/2023 conducted in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of OK Bharadwaj vs Union of India and Others (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 180. The operative part of the said judgment is reproduced below:-
" Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with".
9. However, in the case of Food Corporation of India vs A. Prahallad Rao (2001) 1 SCC 165, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
" It is settled law that Courts power of judicial review in such cases is limited and Court can interfere where the authority held the enquiry proceedings in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry and imposing punishment or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence or is such that no reasonable person would have ever reached. As per the Regulation, holding of regular departmental enquiry is a discretionary power of the disciplinary authority which is to be exercised by considering the facts of each case and if it is misused or used arbitrarily, it would be subject to judicial review".
10. In the case of Union of India & Another vs C.P. Singh, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the legal position and for imposing minor penalty which is extracted as under:-
"(iii) The normal rules, except where the employee admits guilt, is to hold a regular inquiry. But where the penalty proposed is a 'minor penalty', then the Rules give the Disciplinary Authority a discretion to dispense with a regular inquiry for reasons to be recorded by him, and hold only a summary enquiry.
(iv) Though the Rules contemplate imposing a minor penalty without holding a regular enquiry, where the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that such enquiry is Digitally signed by Sambit Kumar Ganguly Sambit Kumar DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=7150, OID.2.5.4.65= 1336014722240550049cSCx8jy16P1KN, Phone= df66569e4aef09e8c9fffe11cd84300f3957e9e407509cd8b03c4ab74c00de89, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 02065415bb80bcbd7e94dd7f68fc7cc80240ce4f8e6f28a05df2a781b4e36f2e, CN=Sambit Kumar Ganguly Ganguly Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 13:45:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 O.A./350/1683/2023 not necessary, such decision not to hold an enquiry can be only for valid reasons, recorded in writing. Dispensation with a regular enquiry where minor penalty is proposed, should be in cases which do not in the very nature of things require an enquiry, for example, (a) cases of unauthorized absence where absence is admitted but some explanation is given for the absence; (b) non-compliance with or breach of lawful orders of official superiors where such breach is admitted but it is contended that it is not willful breach; (c) where the nature of charge is so simple that it can be easily be inferred from undisputed or admitted documents; or (d) where it is not practicable to hold a regular enquiry.
(v) But, even where the penalty proposed is categorized as minor penalty, if the penalty involves withholding increments of pay which is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension (or special contribution to provident fund payable to the employee), or withholding increments of pay for a period exceeding three year or withholding increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period, then it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to hold a regular inquiry.
(vi) Position before decision in FCI: Where the charges are factual and the charges are denied by the employee or when the employee requests for an inquiry or an opportunity to put forth the case, the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority is virtually taken away and it is imperative to hold a regular inquiry.
Position after decision in FCI: Where the Rules give a discretion to the Disciplinary Authority to either hold a summary enquiry or regular enquiry, it is not possible to say that the Disciplinary Authority should direct only a regular enquiry, when an employee denies the charge or requests for an inquiry. Even in such cases, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to decide, for reasons to be recorded, whether a regular enquiry should be held or not. If he decides not to hold a regular enquiry and proceeds to decide the matter summarily, the employee can always challenge the minor punishment imposed, on the ground that the decision not to hold a regular enquiry was an arbitrary decision. In the event, the Court or Tribunal will in exercise of power of judicial review, examine whether the decision of the Disciplinary Authority not to hold an enquiry was arbitrary. If the Court/Tribunal holds that the decision was arbitrary, then such decision not to hold an enquiry and the consequential imposition of punishment will be quashed. If the Digitally signed by Sambit Kumar Ganguly Sambit Kumar DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=7150, OID.2.5.4.65= 1336014722240550049cSCx8jy16P1KN, Phone= df66569e4aef09e8c9fffe11cd84300f3957e9e407509cd8b03c4ab74c00de89, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 02065415bb80bcbd7e94dd7f68fc7cc80240ce4f8e6f28a05df2a781b4e36f2e, CN=Sambit Kumar Ganguly Ganguly Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 13:45:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 O.A./350/1683/2023 Court/Tribunal holds that the decision was not arbitrary, then the imposition of minor penalty will stand.
17. It is also possible to read the decisions in Bharadwaj and FCI harmoniously, if Bharadwaj is read as stating a general principle, without reference to any specific rules, that it is incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to hold a regular enquiry, even for imposing a minor penalty, if the charge is factual and the charge is denied by the employee. On the other hand, the decision in FCI holding that the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to dispense with a regular enquiry, even where the charge is factual and the employee denies the charge, is with reference to the specific provisions of a Rule vesting such discretion".
11. Further, in DHBVNL, Vidyut Nagar, Hissar, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
" Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in above cited cases, on bare perusal of facts on hand we observe that the record would reveal that in representation of the applicant, wherein apparently the applicant has neither sought a detailed enquiry into the alleged charges nor opportunity to defend himself at level of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority therefore, it cannot be said that he has not been afforded a fair and just opportunity. It cannot be said that holding of regular departmental enquiry which is a discretionary power of the disciplinary authority has not been rightly exercised which is to be exercised by considering the facts of each case. There is nothing on record to establish that said discretionary power has been misused or used arbitrarily. The case of the applicant fails on the touchstone of the observations made in decision rendered in FCI (Supra)".
12. In the instant case, it is seen that the applicant had not requested the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a Department Enquiry to enquire into the charges leveled against him. I find that the applicant had been afforded an opportunity by the Disciplinary Authority to defend himself of the said charges leveled against him by way of submitting a written representation. Digitally signed by Sambit Kumar Ganguly Sambit Kumar DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=7150, OID.2.5.4.65= 1336014722240550049cSCx8jy16P1KN, Phone= df66569e4aef09e8c9fffe11cd84300f3957e9e407509cd8b03c4ab74c00de89, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 02065415bb80bcbd7e94dd7f68fc7cc80240ce4f8e6f28a05df2a781b4e36f2e, CN=Sambit Kumar Ganguly Ganguly Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 13:45:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 O.A./350/1683/2023 Moreover, in a proceeding under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion of whether or not to conduct a Departmental Enquiry which has to be exercised depending the facts of each case. In the instant case, I find that the Disciplinary Authority had decided not to conduct a Departmental Enquiry and that such decision was not arbitrary.
13. On perusal of the order dated 05/07/2023 of the Disciplinary Authority whereby penalty has been imposed upon the applicant, I find that the said authority has taken the ground that the applicant had caused pecuniary loss to the Government mainly due to his negligence in not following the procedure laid down in Rule 75(1) and 75(2) of the PoSB Volume 1 (Annexure-A/1) and PO Manual Volume VI Part-III No. 63,68(3). However, Rule 75(1) and 75(2) of PoSB manual, Volume 1 (Annexure-A/7) does not specifically outline the duties and responsibilities of a Postal Assistant with regard to verification of balance of accounts standing at Extra-Departmental Sub-Post Offices and Branch Offices. The said rule casts the responsibility for this function upon the Post-Master/Sub-Post Master concerned. Executive instructions/guidelines regarding the duties and responsibilities of a Postal Assistant are not available on record.
14. Further, a copy of PO Manual Volume VI, Part-III No. 63, 68(3) which has been referred to in the Statement of imputation of charges annexed to the Memorandum dated 07/11/2022 as well as in the order of the disciplinary authority dated 05/07/2023 is not available on record.
15. The Director General of Postal Services vide letter dated 29/11/2021 addressed to all Heads of Circles has issued certain directions regarding identification of subsidiary offenders and regarding recovery of Digitally signed by Sambit Kumar Ganguly Sambit Kumar DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=7150, OID.2.5.4.65= 1336014722240550049cSCx8jy16P1KN, Phone= df66569e4aef09e8c9fffe11cd84300f3957e9e407509cd8b03c4ab74c00de89, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 02065415bb80bcbd7e94dd7f68fc7cc80240ce4f8e6f28a05df2a781b4e36f2e, CN=Sambit Kumar Ganguly Ganguly Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 13:45:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 O.A./350/1683/2023 amount from them towards contributive negligence (Annexure-A/7). An extract from the said letter is reproduced below:-
"ALOK SHARMA Director General Postal Services D.O. No. INV-17/18/2021-INV-DOP dated 29.11.2021 While reviewing investigation reports of loss and fraud cases, It is sometimes observed that Identification of subsidiary offenders is not made in a realistic manner, particularly in the cases where the amount of loss caused to the Government is relatively high, in order to make recovery of loss, the investigating officers identify a large number of subsidiary offenders without properly examining the lapses on their part and without appreciating if such lapses are relatable to the commission of fraud. This results in faulty identification of subsidiary offenders and subsequently the Disciplinary Authorities also order recovery of the toss from the pay and allowances of such offenders, whose negligence might not have directly resulted in fraud. This later becomes a cause of grievance from service unions or unnecessary appeal/petition or court cases.
2. In this respect, attention is drawn to Rule 106, 107 and 111 of Postal Manual Volume-III, which inter-alia prescribes that in case of proceedings relating to recovery of pecuniary losses caused to the Government by negligence or breach of order by a Government Servant, the penalty of recovery can be imposed only when it is established that Government Servant was responsible for particular act for omission or breach of rules/orders/Instructions and that such negligence/omission/breach has resulted in losses The aforesaid Rules also specify that the competent authority should correctly assess the contributory negligence in a realistic manner on the part of the officers and the extenuating circumstance in which the duties were performed by the officer, also requires to be given due weightage.
3. In this context, a need has been felt to sensitize the Disciplinary Authorities about the adverse outcome of such faulty Identification of subsidiary offenders and making recovery from them for no lapse or the lapses, which are not relatable to the commission of a particular fraud. It should be clearly understood by the all Disciplinary Authorities that an official can be punished for good and sufficient reasons, but the penalty of recovery can be awarded only if the lapses on their part have led to the commission of fraud or misappropriation. This does not mean that for the alleged lapses an official cannot be identified as subsidiary offender, but it is only to emphasize that in cases where the contributory negligence cannot be explicitly attributed to a particular offender or pecuniary liability cannot be worked out, instead of the penalty of recovery, any other statutory penalty should be imposed. Wherever it is proposed to award penalty of recovery, the charge sheet should be drafted carefully to clearly indicate the loss caused due to lapses on the part of the official concerned. The instructions contained in this office communication no. DG P&T- No. 114/176/78- Disc. II dtd 13-02-1981 Gol No. 12(b) below Rule 11 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1565 may also be referred to
4. I would, therefore, request you to bring these instructions to the notice of all the concerned, so that the proceedings initiated as a result of investigation in a loss and fraud case do not suffer from procedural flaws and grievances/court cases on such counts could be avoided in future".
16. In the instant case, the charge sheet memorandum dated 07/11/2022 issued to the applicant does not indicate the loss caused by Digitally signed by Sambit Kumar Ganguly Sambit Kumar DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=7150, OID.2.5.4.65= 1336014722240550049cSCx8jy16P1KN, Phone= df66569e4aef09e8c9fffe11cd84300f3957e9e407509cd8b03c4ab74c00de89, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 02065415bb80bcbd7e94dd7f68fc7cc80240ce4f8e6f28a05df2a781b4e36f2e, CN=Sambit Kumar Ganguly Ganguly Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 13:45:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 O.A./350/1683/2023 the applicant as a result of the alleged lapses on his part. I find that the Disciplinary Authority, in his order dated 05/07/2023 has not assessed the contributory negligence on the part of the applicant. The Disciplinary Authority in his order dated 05/07/2023 has merely stated that the negligence/omission on the part of the applicant has led to the commission of a fraud at Shalkumarhat B.O. I find that the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 05/07/2023 does not establish that that as a result of negligence, on the part of the applicant, a fraud in the Shalkumarhat B.O. under Mathurabagan S.O. had occured causing huge loss to the Government.
17. Further, in his letter dated 29/11/2021 (Annexure-A/7), the Director General of Post Offices has issued instructions to the effect that whenever it is proposed to award the penalty of recovery, the charge sheet showed be drafted carefully to indicate the loss caused due to lapses on the part of the official concerned. This has not been done in the instant case by the Disciplinary Authority.
18. The Director General of Posts in the above mentioned letter (Supra) has instructed that in cases where the contributory negligence cannot be explicitly attributed to a particular offender or if pecuniary liability cannot be worked out, instead of imposing the penalty of recovery any other statutory penalty should be imposed.
19. I also find that the order of the Appellate Authority dated 22/04/2024 is very cryptic in nature. The issues raised by the applicant in his appeal, the procedural aspects of the disciplinary proceeding as well as the fairness of the disciplinary proceeding have not been examined by Appellate Authority as is evident from his order dated 22/04/2024. Digitally signed by Sambit Kumar Ganguly Sambit Kumar DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=7150, OID.2.5.4.65= 1336014722240550049cSCx8jy16P1KN, Phone= df66569e4aef09e8c9fffe11cd84300f3957e9e407509cd8b03c4ab74c00de89, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 02065415bb80bcbd7e94dd7f68fc7cc80240ce4f8e6f28a05df2a781b4e36f2e, CN=Sambit Kumar Ganguly Ganguly Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 13:45:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 O.A./350/1683/2023
20. In view of the above discussion, the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 05/07/2023 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 22/04/2024 are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority who may initiate a fresh disciplinary proceeding against the applicant.
21. With these directions, this original application is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Anindo Majumdar) Administrative Member //SKG// Digitally signed by Sambit Kumar Ganguly Sambit Kumar DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=7150, OID.2.5.4.65= 1336014722240550049cSCx8jy16P1KN, Phone= df66569e4aef09e8c9fffe11cd84300f3957e9e407509cd8b03c4ab74c00de89, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 02065415bb80bcbd7e94dd7f68fc7cc80240ce4f8e6f28a05df2a781b4e36f2e, CN=Sambit Kumar Ganguly Ganguly Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 13:45:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0