Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
K Usha vs Post Kerala Circle on 26 March, 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.180/00699/2021
Thursday, this the 26th day of March, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs. V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
K. Usha, D/o. the late T. Kochukunju, aged 56 years,
Sub Postmaster (Officiating), Thattarambalam Sub Office,
Thattarambalam, Mavelikkara Postal Division,
Alappuzha District-690 193, Residing at 'Srikrishnapriya', Santhinager,
Kottarcavu, Mavelikkara PO, Alappuzha District-690 101.
-Applicant
[By Advocates: Mr. Antony Mukath, Mr.George Varghese]
Versus
1. Superintendent of Post Offices, Mavelikkara Division,
Mavelikkara-690101.
2. Postmaster General, Central Region, Kochi-682 018.
3. Director of Postal Services, Central Region, Kochi-682 018
4. Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram-695 033.
5. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Communication
and Information Technology, New Delhi-110 001
-Respondents
[By Advocate: Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, SPC]
The application having been heard on 02.01.2026, the Tribunal on
26.03.2026 delivered the following order:
Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30'
2
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member Applicant is a Postal Assistant in Mavelikkara Division in Alappuzha District. On account of some acts of misconduct that had happened during 2007, she was served with Annexure-A1 charge memo on 10.09.2009, which ultimately ended in her compulsory retirement. On appeal, the penalty was modified into reduction in her pay in six stages for a period of five years. On revision, further modification was made in the penalty, which has prompted her to approach the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:
"i) to call for the records leading to Annexure A-1 Charge Memo dated 10-09-2009, Annexure A-14 Inquiry Report dated 18-
10-2016, Annexure A-17 Penalty Order dated 28-02-2017, Annexure A-19 Appellate Order dated 07-06-2019 and Annexure A-23 Revisional Order dated 09-06-2021 and to set aside the same;
ii) to declare that the applicant is legally entitled to treat the period of compulsory retirement from service from 01-04-2012 to 19-05-2015 and 28-02-2017 to 31-07-2019 as duty for all purposes in terms of Fundamental Rule 54 and to grant her all service benefits during the above periods of compulsory retirement;
iii) to issue appropriate direction or order, directing the respondents to treat the period of compulsory retirement from service from 01-04-2012 to 19-05-2015 and 28-02-2017 to 31-07-
Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 3 2019 as duty for all purposes and to disburse her all service benefits including arrears of salary and allowances during the above periods of compulsory retirement;
iv) to issue appropriate direction or order, directing the respondents to restore the pay of the applicant with effect from 01-04-2012 and to grant her periodical increments with pay revision benefits and to disburse the arrears of pay and allowances without regard to Annexure A-8 and A-17 orders of compulsory retirement expeditiously and at any rate, within a time-frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal;
v) to issue appropriate direction or order, directing the respondents to restore the pay of the applicant consequent on setting aside Annexure A-19 and A-23 Orders and to refund the amounts illegally recovered from the applicant consequent on the issuance of Annexure A-19 and A-23 Immediately and at any rate, within a time-frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal."
2. The applicant assails Annexure-A1 charge memo dated 10.09.2009, Annexure-A14 enquiry report dated 18.10.2016, Annexure-A17 order of the 1st respondent imposing punishment of compulsory retirement dated 28.02.2017, Annexure-A19 appellate order dated 07.06.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent and Annexure-A23 order of the revisional authority dated 09.06.2021. The applicant submits that all these documents are liable to be quashed as they are patently illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 311(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India.
3. Further, it is submitted that the principles of natural justice were Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 4 not followed by the enquiry authority. Though two rounds of enquiry were conducted, the documents called for by her for a proper defence were not furnished to her which had caused her substantial prejudice and therefore, she was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to contest the allegations contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Thus she submits that principles of natural justice and Articles 311(1) and (2) of the Constitution were not followed.
4. Even though she had raised these contentions from the very inception in her defence statement and also in the representation against the enquiry report, in appeal, revision etc., the authorities did not consider it in proper perspective. It is the settled principle of law that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but here, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate and revisional authorities assumed that it is the burden of the delinquent officer to disprove the allegations, which is patently illegal. Further, it is submitted that the punishment imposed on her even after the modification made by the revisional authority is severely harsh and without good and sufficient reasons and shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct alleged against her. She has complained that the disciplinary, appellate as well as the revisional authorities did not consider the grievances raised by her but caused her severe prejudice.
Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 5
5. Similarly, placed on Annexures-A24 and A25 she said that she has been badly discriminated against. Persons similarly placed have been granted a compassionate approach. In such cases, the charges were dropped whereas a severe punishment has been imposed on her, which shows the mindset of the respondents. Therefore, the entire proceedings have to be quashed.
6. The respondents, on the other hand, have disputed the contentions raised by the applicant. According to them, sufficient opportunities were afforded to the applicant and the finding of guilt was arrived at after conducting detailed enquiry. Earlier, she had raised complaints of bias against the first enquiry officer as well as the presenting officer, who were changed. Thereafter, she raised such a contention again, which was not considered by the authorities and thus after completion of enquiry she was found guilty and punishment of compulsory retirement was awarded under Annexure-A8. In appeal, the appellate authority set aside that punishment and ordered denovo enquiry, which was done and this time also the very same contentions were raised by the applicant, which could not have been considered by the respondents.
7. According to the respondents, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed after detailed enquiry, after taking into consideration all the material pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution. The applicant Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 6 was also heard and many of the documents suggested by the applicant were allowed to be produced, but those documents which were not available could not be supplied to the applicant. According to them, copies of all the records relied on by the prosecution were supplied to her and after conducting detailed enquiry the punishment of compulsory retirement was ordered, which was later modified by the appellate authority, still modified by the revisional authority and therefore, the applicant does not deserve any relief.
8. Regarding the allegation discrimination, it is said that the imputations in Annexures-A24 and A25 have no comparison with that of the charges levelled against the applicant and therefore that is not comparable with the allegations against the applicant.
9. The applicant filed a rejoinder contending that Anneure-A1 charge sheet is vague, non-specific and lacking in material particulars. The procedure conducted against her were irregular, she was not given reasonable opportunity to contest, which has caused considerable prejudice to her. The enquiry report is not based on legal evidence and hence is totally perverse. It was repeated that the principles of natural justice were not followed. She further contended that the punishment, even after the modification made by the revisional and appellate authority, is harsher than the order of compulsory retirement. She will suffer great loss, if the punishment is allowed to sustain, Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 7 it will become disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. She further contended that she has been treated differently, which is evident from the documents produced by her.
10. The respondents filed an additional reply disputing the contentions raised by the applicant and also reiterating the earlier reply.
11. We heard Sri.Vinayakumar Varma on behalf of Sri.Antony Mukkath, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents, in great detail.
12. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the following decisions, in support of his arguments:
1. Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India and others [AIR 1986 SC 2118]
2. Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India [AIR 1988 SC 117]
3. State of U.P. v. Raj Pal Singh [(2010) 5 SCC 783]
4. Man Singh v. State of Haryana and others [AIR 2008 SC 2481]
5. B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others [AIR 1996 SC 484]
6. Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj v. Bank of India and others [AIR 2019 SC 2075]
7. Union of India and others v. P.Balasubrahmanayam [ AIR 2021 SC 1257] Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 8
8. B.S. Hari Commandant v. Union of India and others [2023 CrLJ 2001]
9. State of Punjab v. V.K.Khanna and others [AIR 2001 SC 343]
10. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash Singh [2025 (5) Supreme 65]
11. Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.200 of 2016 [E.V.Ramanarayanan v. General Manager (HRM) and others dated 31.10.2025]
13. He also placed reliance on the Postal Manual Volume VI (Part III). Basing on the pay particulars he submitted that if the punishment imposed by the respondent is allowed to sustain, the applicant will suffer heavy loss. Going by the present modified punishment, her basic pay as on 31.05.2026, the date on which she is retiring, would be Rs.42,800/- only, whereas had she not suffered any penalty, pay would have been Rs.49,600/-.
14. According to learned Standing Counsel, the respondents have considered the entire aspects in correct context. Two rounds of enquiry were held and all the contentions raised by the applicant were considered by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority, as well as the revisional authority and there is absolutely nothing illegal or improper in the charges levelled Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 9 against the applicant, which is very clear and specific, necessary documents were supplied to the applicant, sufficient opportunities were given, alleged bias petitions were considered at the appropriate time; when the second bias petition was not allowed, for that reason, the earlier punishment was set aside and denovo enquiry was ordered; the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was considered and modified by the appellate as well as the revisional authority; even during the period of penalty she will earn increment; on the expiry of the punishment period, her old pay will be restored and during the period of punishment she may incur monetary loss, but she will not suffer any loss in pension.
15. According to the learned Standing Counsel, all the documents relied on by the applicant were supplied and some of the documents sought by her could not be supplied since they were not available. Out of the eight documents sought by her, five were supplied, three could not be supplied, which were not relied on by the prosecution. Those three documents could not be supplied since the retention period of those documents was expired. He also pointed out that the Postal Assistant, the said Chacko was also proceeded against and was punished in separate proceedings. The learned counsel has relied on the following authorities:
1. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sree Rama Rao [3 SCR SC 25] Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 10
2. High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S Patil [(2000) 1 SCC 416]
3. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v.
A.Masilamani [(2013) 6 SCC 530]
4. Deputy General Manager(Appellate Authority) and others v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava [(2021) 2 SCC 612]
5. Union of India and others v. P.Gunasekaran [(2015) 2 SCC 610]
6. Union of India and another v. B.C.Chaturvedi [(1995) 6 SCC 750]
7. Order of this Tribunal in O.A.99/2021 dated 31.12.2024 [N.Harikumar v. Union of India and others]
8. The Managing Director, North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. K.Maruti [2006 Supp. 9 SCR 150]
9. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.A.Hullikatti [2001 (1) SCR 487]
10. Union of India and others v. R.K.Sharma [(2001) 9 SCC 592]
11. State of Meghalaya and others. Mecken Singh N. Marak [(2008) 7 SCC 580]
12. State Bank of India and others v. Bidyut Kumar Mitra and others [(2011) 2 SCC 316]
13. Union of India etc. V. Parma Nand etc. [1989 (2) SCR 19] Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 11
14. State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal and another [(1998) 6 SCC 651]
15. Union of India and others v. Indraj dated 13.11.2025 [Civil Appeal No.13183 of 2025]
16. Sunil Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and others [(1980 ) 3 SCC 304]
17. Union of India etc. v. K.V.Janakiraman etc. dated 27.08.1991 [1991 (3) SCR 790]
16. The case has a checkered history. The proceeding under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules was initiated against her on account of the allegations pertaining to the period between 03.07.2007 to 31.05.2008 in respect of charges I and II while she was working as SPM Padanilam, whereas the remaining charges related to the period between 18.07.2003 to 02.07.2007 when she was working as SPM, Chunakkara. Pursuant to the alleged misconduct committed by her, Annexure-A1 memo of charges was served on her on 10.09.2009. For convenience, Articles I to IV can be extracted:
"Article-1 That the said Smt. K Usha while acting as SPM Padanilam for the period from 3.7.07 to 31.5.08 failed to write up the SO account before closing of the office on 22.12.07 and the cash balance of the office was not kept in the cash chest under the joint custody of SPM and PA on 22.12.07.
By the above act Smt K.Usha has failed to observe Rule 84 of Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 12 Postal Manual Vol. VI Part III and thereby failed to maintain integrity and devotion to duty as envisaged in Rule 3 (I) (i) and 3 (I) (ii) of CCS (Conduct Rules) 1964.
Article-II That the said Smt. K. Usha while acting as SPM Padanilam for the period from 3.7.07 to 31.5.08 failed work within authorized limits and retained excess cash in the office on dates 17.11.07, 7.12.07, 8.12.07 showing false liabilities.
By the above act Smt. K. Usha has failed to observe Rule 102 B of Postal Manual Vol. VI (Part III) and thereby failed to maintain integrity and devotion to duty as envisaged in Rule 3 (I) (i) and 3 (I)
(ii) of CCS (Conduct Rules )1964.
Articles-III That the said Smt. K. Usha while working as SPM Chunakara Class III office for the period from 18.7.03 to 2.7.07 allowed withdrawal of Rs. 33000/- on 9.9.06 from SB Account No. 576228 in the name of Subaida Kochayyathu House, Chunakara PO, Chunakara without comparing the signature on the SB.7 voucher with that available on record and failed to return the pass book after the transaction to the person who presented it.
By the above act Smt. K.Usha has violated Rule 33 (5) (i) of POSB Manual Volume I and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty as envisaged in Rule 3 (I) (ii) of CCS (Conduct Rules) 1964. Article IV That the said Smt. K Usha while acting as SPM Chunakara for the period from 18-07-03 to 02-07-07 failed to account an amount of RS.100/- (one hundred) collected towards RD deposit in RD Account No. 792624 in the name of Srinath K.R, Aswathy Bhavan, Chunakara Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 13 North on 23-09-06.
By the above act Smt. K Usha, PA, Kayangulam while working as SPM Chunakara during the period has failed to follow the provisions of Rule 106 of POSB Manual Volume 1 and Rule 4 (I) of P&T FHB Manual Volume I and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity devotion to duty as envisaged in Rule 3 (I) (i) and 3 (I) (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964."
17. The applicant denied the allegations. That resulted in appointing one Sri.R.Raveendran Pillai, retired SSP as enquiry officer and Sri.K.Sivasankara Pillai as presenting officer. Immediately after their appointment, the applicant approached the 3rd respondent with a bias petition dated 28.10.2009. Thus that appointments were cancelled and Smt.Aleyamma Easo, ASP, Changanassery was appointed as enquiry officer and K.K.Sivasankara Pillai, ASP, Mavelikkara was appointed as the presenting officer. While the said Aleyamma Easo had commenced the enquiry, the applicant again filed bias petition on 02.04.2011, which was rejected by the 2nd respondent on 16.06.2011. Thus that enquiry continued and ultimately, Annexure-A6 enquiry report was submitted on 01.02.2012 finding her guilty of charges I, II and IV. After considering her representation, by Annexure-A8 order dated 30.03.2012 an order of compulsory retirement was imposed on her.
18. The applicant filed Annexure-A9 appeal against Annexure-A8 Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 14 order before the 3rd respondent. By Annexure-A10 order dated 11.11.2013 the Director, PTC, Madurai, who was holding charge of the 3rd respondent, allowed that appeal and remitted the matter for conducting a denovo enquiry.
19. Thus the applicant was reinstated in service and Smt.Reena Susan Mathew, ASP, Mavelikkara was appointed as the new enquiry authority and Sri.Swaraj Nair, Inspector of Post Offices, Kayamkulam was appointed as the presenting officer. Meanwhile, the applicant filed petition before the respondents for regularising her period of absence from 07.04.2012 to 31.05.2015 since the appeal was pending that was not considered.
20. Thus denovo enquiry was conducted by Smt.Reena Susan Mathew. On conclusion, Annexure-A14 report was submitted by her on 18.10.2016, this time also, finding her guilty of charges I, II and IV whereas the third charge was found not proved. The applicant gave her representation against Annexure-A14, but in Annexure-A17 decision of the 1 st respondent dated 28.02.2017 she was again served with a punishment of compulsory retirement. Against that order, she filed Annexure-A18 appeal on 12.04.2017, which resulted in Annexure-A19 order dated 07.06.2019. In the said order, the appellate authority modified the sentence of compulsory retirement, instead she was directed to be reinstated in service forthwith, however imposing a penalty of reduction in pay by six stages from Rs.40,400/- to Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 15 Rs.33,900/- in the pay matrix level -5 for a period of five years with effect from 01.08.2019. It was further directed that the applicant will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of the period of reduction the reduction will have the effect of postponing her future increments of pay.
21. The applicant filed Annexure-A20 revision against the appellate order. Meanwhile, she was reinstated in service on 01.08.2017 on the strength of the appellate order. In Annexure-A23 order, the revisional authority, the Chief Postmaster General, the punishment was further modified to the effect of 'reducing her pay by six stages from Rs.40,400/- to Rs.33,900/- in the pay matrix level-5 for a period of five years with effect from 01.08.2019'. It was further directed that 'the applicant will earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of the period of reduction, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing the effect of future increments of pay'. These orders are under challenge before us.
22. Annexure-A1 charge sheet contains list of 31 documents to be proved in support of the case of the prosecution and 11 witnesses were proposed to be examined. The Annexure-A14 report indicates that all these documents were marked on behalf of the respondents and 11 witnesses were examined. During the course of enquiry, the applicant had submitted request for supplying certain additional documents in defence. Eight such documents Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 16 were wanted to be produced by the respondents. But it is clear that five documents were supplied and were considered in the enquiry. Three documents could not be supplied as they were not available with the respondents. As already stated, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that all the available documents were supplied to the applicant and non- availability was intimated. According to him, by the time the enquiry was conducted, the retention period of those three documents had already expired, which were not retained by the respondents, so that it could not be supplied to the applicant. According to the learned Standing Counsel, copies of all the documents relied on by the prosecution were supplied to the applicant, the applicant has no case that such documents were not given to her. Therefore, according to him, the contention that she was not given opportunity to defend the case properly has no basis.
23. In the decision reported in Shasikanth S.Patil, quoted supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has described the scope and ambit of interference by the higher Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or under the Administrative Tribunals Act. Paragraph 16 of the judgment reads thus:
"16. The Division Bench of the High Court seems to have approached the case as though it was an appeal against the order of the administrative/disciplinary authority of the High Court. Interference with the decision of departmental authorities can be permitted, while Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 17 exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry or if the decision of the authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or if the conclusion made by the authority, on the very face of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion, or grounds very similar to the above. But we cannot overlook that the departmental authority (in this case the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court) is the sole judge of the facts, if the inquiry has been properly conducted. The settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution."
24. Similarly, in the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sreerama Rao, the Supreme Court has held as follow:
"The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant:
it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent Officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 18 in a petition for a writ under Art. 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence."
25. In B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749] a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled thus:
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re- appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 19 in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
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 [AIR 1964 SC 364], 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."
26. The numerous authorities relied on by both sides clearly indicate that the scope and ambit of interference in such a proceedings is rather limited. In other words, if the enquiry was conducted after affording sufficient opportunity to defend and if the principles of natural justice are generally complied with, the scope of interference by the Tribunal at this tapering end is limited. It has been consistently held by the Apex Court that Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 20 this is not an appellate forum and the Tribunal, while invoking the jurisdiction under the judicial review, cannot act as an appellate forum and go in to the details as the applicant wanted us to do. The Tribunal is expected only to take a bird's eye view as to whether principles of natural justice have been followed, whether there was some evidence against the delinquent, whether procedural formalities have been complied with generally, whether any prejudice has been caused to the applicant and lastly whether the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant.
27. We will consider the contentions of the applicant in the above stated situations and legal premises only.
28. The first and foremost contention raised by the applicant was that principles of natural justice were not followed and the applicant was not served with documents which were necessary to make proper defence. But, after evaluating the circumstances and going through the materials, we are unable to sustain the contention. As noticed earlier, charge sheet contains a list of 31 documents and 11 witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution. The applicant does not have a case that any of these documents was not supplied to her. On the other hand, what has been highlighted is the non-supply of three documents relied on by her as part of her defence.
Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 21 According to the learned counsel, because of the non-supply of these documents, a proper defence had become impossible. But those are documents relied on by the defence, not by the prosecution. Out of the 8 documents sought to be relied on by the applicant, five were supplied to her and the remaining three could not be supplied due to non-availability of the same. The learned Standing Counsel has explained that those three documents were not available since its retention period had already expired by the time the enquiry was conducted. That means, there is no basis in the contention that the documents were not supplied to the prosecution. Firstly, those are not documents relied on by the prosecution. The prosecution is bound to supply only those documents relied on by them in support of the charge sheet. Such documents were supplied to her. The applicant has no case that 31 documents relied on by the prosecution were not supplied. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant deal with non- supply of documents relied on by the prosecution and not by the defence. Therefore, those authorities will not salvage the position of the applicant.
29. The applicant had buttressed the contention that the principles of natural justice were not followed. But such an argument also cannot be upheld. As stated earlier, the enquiry officer and the presenting officer initially appointed were replaced by Smt. Aleyamma Easo and Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 22 Sri.K.K.Sivasankara Pillai, who had conducted enquiry and Annexure-A6 report was filed, which is the first report filed on 01.02.2012. On that basis, order of compulsory retirement was ordered through Annexure-A8. Against that order, Annexure-A9 appeal was preferred. In fact, even though that has lost relevance since a denovo enquiry has already held and the applicant was found guilty by the enquiry officer, we must say, we are unable to comprehend Annexure-A10 appellate order. In Annexure-A10, the appellate authority has, by a cryptic order, held that the bias petition was not properly considered. At the same time, it seems that, while passing the Annexure-A10 order, Annexure-A5 order dated 16.06.2011 rejecting the second bias petition was not considered by the appellate authority. The reason for passing Annexure-A5 was the fact that by the time, the enquiry had reached an advanced stage. The O.M. relied on in Annexure-A10 also indicates that if the enquiry had reached an advanced stage, that will not sustain. Whatever it may be, we do not want to say anything more about Annexure-A10, since, by subsequent developments, that order has lost its relevance.
30. But we want to reiterate that on a close reading of the entire proceedings, there are reasons to think that principles of natural justice were complied with by the respondents and no prejudice has been caused to the applicant. As noticed earlier, all the documents relied on by the prosecution Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 23 were supplied to the applicant and the non-supply of documents proposed to be relied on by the respondents cannot have any impact in the defence of the applicant. All available documents requisitioned by the applicant were supplied and non-availability of three documents was intimated to her.
31. Even though we are not expected to go that much deep, a close reading of the statements of allegations in support of Articles I and II would clearly indicate that non-supply of such documents had no relevance at all.
"Article -I Smt. K. Usha was acting as SPM Padanilam for the period from 3.7.07 to 31.5.08. Smt. K. Usha was granted leave from 24.12.07. But she had not handed over the charge of the office to the PA Sri. G. Chacko in the evening of 22.12.07. On 24.12.07 Smt. Deepa Murali, IP MVK (S) Sub Division visited Padanilam PO at 0900 hrs. Neither the SPM, Smt. K.Usha nor the PA Sri.G. Chacko was present at the post office. But the post office was kept opened by the GDS MP, Jayakumar. On enquiry, the GDSMP Sri. Jayakumar admitted that the SPM Smt. K.Usha has given him the key of the office and cash safe on his way to office. At 0915 hours the PA Sri.G.Chacko arrived the office and the cash safe was opened in his presence. It was found that it contained only the stamps worth Rs.
4942/40. No cash was available in the cash chest. At 0945 hrs an Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 24 outsider Sri. Krishnankutty brought some documents in a big shopper to the office and stated that the SPM K.Usha was waiting for Auto for coming to office. Smt. K.Usha attended the office at 1000 hrs. She took Rs.25670/95 from the big shopper, the amount being the office cash balance. The big shopper contained some office documents also. Sri. G.Chacko PA Padanilam in his statement dated 24.12.07 before IP MVK (S) Sub division stated that the SPM Smt. Usha was granted leave from 24.12.07. But the SPM has not handed over the charge of the office to him in the evening of 22.12.07 (23.12.07 being Sunday) and the office was kept opened when he arrived at the office and no cash was available in the cash chest. Sri.S. Jayakumar GDSMP Padanilam in his statement dtd 24.12.07 before IP, Mavelikara south sub division admitted that the SPM Smt. K. Usha entrusted the keys of the office and cash chest to him for giving to Sri. G.Chacko as she was on leave on 24.12.07.
Smt. K. Usha in her statement dated 24.12.07 before IP MVK (S) Sub Division admitted that she has taken the cash balance and documents with her while leaving the office in the evening of 22.12.07 and the same were returned to the SO in the morning through an outsider, Sri. Krishnankutty for entrusting to Sri.G.Chacko. She added that the keys of the office and cash chest Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 25 were sent to Sri.G Chacko in the morning of 24.12.07 through Sri. Jayakumar, GDSMP, Padanilam as she could not attend the office in time on 24.12.07 due to Harthal. Hence it is imputed that Smt. K. Usha has failed to write up the SO Account before the close of the day on 22.12.07 and the cash balance of the office was not kept in the cash safe of the office in the joint custody of PA and SPM on 22.12.07 as envisaged in Rule 84 of Postal Manual Volume VI (Part III).
Article II Smt. K.Usha was acting as SPM Padanilam for the period from 3.7.07 to 31.5.08. On the close of 17.11.07 Smt. K. Usha, SPM, Padanilam prepared the SO daily account dated 17.11.07. According to the daily account the cash retained in the office on 17.11.07 was Rs. 20698.05 against the authorized maximum of Rs. 8000/- Thus there was excess retention of Rs. 12698.05 on 17.11.07. Smt. K. Usha has also prepared ECB memo for excess retention of cash on 17.11.07. In the ECB memo dated 17.11.07, reason for excess retention of cash was liability of encashment of KVP worth Rs. 250000/-. While checking the ECB memo PM Kayangulam remarked that the reason for retention of excess cash at Padanilam on 17.11.07 was not satisfactory. The ECB memo was forwarded to Divisional Office for review. On review of the ECB memo at Divisional office the genuineness of the liability was enquired through IP Mavelikara South Sub Division. Smt. Deepa Murali, IP, Mavelikara South Sub Division after verification of genuineness of liabilities reported that there was no KVP discharge on 19.11.07 (18.11.07 Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 26 being Sunday) and as such the liability shown in the ECB memo was false and excess cash retention at Padanilam SO dated 17-11-07 was not justified.
On the close of 7-12-07 Smt. K. Usha prepared SO Account dated 7-12-07. According to the daily account cash retained in the office was Rs.58269/95 against authorized maximum of Rs.8000/-. There was excess retention of Rs. 50269/95 on 7.12.07 at Padanilam SO Smt. K. Usha had prepared ECB memo on 07-12-07 showing reason for excess retention of cash. The reason shown was liability of MIS payment of Rs. 98000/-. After checking the ECB memo, PM, Kayangulam wrote the remark that "Has kept cash excess without genuine liabilities MIS payment Rs.20,000/- or above should be by crossed cheque only Not satisfactory". The ECB memo was forwarded to Divisional Office for review. On review Superintendent ordered the IP for verification of genuineness of liability. After verification Smt. Deepa Murali, IP, Mavelikara (S) Sub Division reported that there was no MIS payment at Padanilam on 8-12-07 and as such the MIS payment shown as liability for retention of excess cash on 7-12-07 was false.
On the close of 08-12-07, Smt. K. Usha, SPM Padanilam prepared SO daily account. According to the daily account, cash retained in the office on 08-12-07 was Rs. 56499/90 against authorized maximum of Rs. 8000/-. Thus there is excess retention of RS.48499/90 at Padanilam SO on 08-12-07. Smt. K.Usha had prepared ECB memo dated 08-12-07 showing reason for excess retention of cash on 08-12-07. The reason shown for excess retention of cash was liability of KVP payment of Rs.126719. After checking the ECB memo PM Kayangulam wrote the remark "has kept cash Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 27 excess without genuine liabilities. Payment of maturity value of KVP Rs. 20,000/- and above should be by crossed cheque only. SPM is regularly keeping cash excess not satisfactory". The ECB meme was forwarded to Superintendent for review. On reviewing the ECB memo Superintendent ordered IP, Mavelikara South Sub Division to verify genuineness of the liabilities. Smt. Deepa Murali, IP MVK (S) Sub Division after verification of genuineness of liabilities reported that "No KVP payment on 10.12.07(9.12.07 being Sunday). The liability is the same as that furnished on 10-12-07". As such the MIS payment shown as liability for retention of excess cash on 8.12.07 was false.
From the above it is clear that Smt. K. Usha, SPM, Padanilam has retained excess cash at Padanilam SO on dates 17.11.07, 07-12- 07 and 08-12-07 without liabilities violating Rule 102 B of Postal Manual Vol. VI (Part III) and thereby failed to maintain integrity at devotion to duty as envisaged in Rule 3 (I) (i) and 3 (I) (ii) of CCS Conduct Rules 1964."
32. Even though it was contended that the charges are vague, lacking in particulars etc., the learned counsel could not convince us to how the charges are ambiguous. We find the charges along with statements of allegations contain all necessary details.
33. The other contention was that the charge memo should contain only facts and should not contain opinion of the disciplinary authority. In fact, such an argument cannot be sustained which relates to the third charge, which has not been proved and no proceeding has been initiated against the applicant pursuant to the third charge which was not found proved. Thus Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 28 there is no basis in such a contention also.
34. The learned counsel for the applicant also pointed out that there is gross delay in initiating the proceedings. The incident allegedly had happened in 2007, but the proceedings were initiated only in 2009, still it went upto 2016 that the reasons for the delay is attributable to the respondents. But, after evaluating the entire sequences of events, we are unable to uphold that contention also. Even though the incident related to the period from 2007 onwards, the charge sheet was served on 10.09.2009. Thereafter, the matter went on; as stated earlier, the applicant had filed atleast two bias petitions and then a denovo enquiry was held after Annexure- A9 appellate order. During that period, some confusion had arisen as the first appellate authority in Annexure-A10 did not make any mention as to how the period of absence, after compulsory retirement should be treated. Thereafter, the proceedings continued by the appointment of the new enquiry authority and presenting officer, that is Smt.Reena Susan Mathew and Sri.Swaraj Nair. Even thereafter, delay has caused since the applicant herself had sought time for finding out a defence assistant. The defence assistant also had sought time on the ground like his daughter's marriage, that he had to attend another enquiry etc. In our assessment, there is no reason to conclude that the respondents had purposely delayed the proceedings for Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 29 which no motive can be attributed against them. In fact the sequences of events narrated above contributed for the prolongation of the proceedings which is not attributable to the respondents alone. It is not stated that any of the respondent had any personal malice or ill will against the applicant to proceed against her because during the course of time, officers including the Superintendents of Post Office and the enquiry authorities had changed hands and therefore, it cannot be stated that all had nursed ill will against the applicant for troubling her. Such arguments cannot be accepted at this stage.
35. The learned counsel for the applicant has forcefully argued that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges. From the memo of charges and the statement of allegations, it is very clear that serious financial mismanagement on the part of the applicant was the root cause of the allegations. Readings of the statement of allegations also throw more light into the gravity of charges. Even though the disciplinary authority had imposed the extreme punishment of compulsory retirement, the appellate as well as revisional authorities have gradually softened the harshness and ultimately, she had to suffer reductions in six stages for five years; as per the revisional order, during the period of punishment she will earn increment and after 01.08.2024 the impact of such a punishment will be over. It appears that she will not suffer any loss in pension and terminal Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 30 benefits. Whatever it may be, it cannot be held that the punishment imposed, compared to the charges, which are serious in nature, is shocking to the conscience of the Court. Therefore, that argument also cannot be upheld.
36. The last contention was that she was subjected to invidious discrimination, for which Annexure-A24 and A25 were relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant. But, after going through these documents, we have no doubt in our mind that there cannot be any comparison between Annexure-A1 charge on the one hand and Annexure-A24 and Annexure-A25 on the other. It is evident from Annexure-A24 that the delinquent, V.R.Chandrasenon was having only contributory negligence in respect of loss of an amount of Rs.1,53,531/-, that he had remitted 50% of the loss sustained by four depositors because of his contributory negligence. Such a proceedings had ended after his retirement and therefore, a lenient view was taken by the disciplinary authority, the 1 st respondent, by dropping the proceedings.
37. In Annexure-A25 also, proceedings under Rule 9 of CCS(Pension) Rules, was concluded after the retirement of the delinquent officer, Sri.C.M.John. There also, the 1st respondent had noticed that there was only supervisory lapses on his part and he had made good the loss. In the Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 31 circumstances, the disciplinary authority was inclined to drop the proceedings. But, here, the applicant is proved to have committed serious financial misconduct and therefore, such an argument on the part of the applicant cannot be sustained.
38. After evaluating the entire circumstances and materials, in the backdrop of settled principles of law, we are not inclined to interfere with the procedures adopted by the respondents or even the punishment. The Original Application lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
39. Before parting with, we have to make mention about Annexures- A21 and A22. Annexure-A21 is a show cause notice issued to the applicant under FR 54 for showing cause as to why her period of absence from 28.02.2017 to 31.07.2019 should not be treated as non-duty. In response to the notice, she filed Annexure-A22 and requested the 3 rd respondent that proposal of treating the period as duty/not duty may be postponed till the disposal of her revision petition. But after disposing of the revision, a final order has not been passed by the respondents. Similarly, after the earlier order of compulsory retirement-Annexure-A9 dated 30.03.2012, she had remained out of service from 01.04.2012 till 19.05.2015. Both these spells have not yet been regularised.
40. It is necessary under FR 54 that before passing such an order the Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 32 applicant should be given opportunity of being heard. It is clear that the applicant had been remaining outside service during the above two spells, for about 5½ years. Now, the show cause notice has been issued asking to show cause as to why such a period shall not be treated as non-duty. A decision has not been taken by the 1st respondent on the question. Therefore, that aspect relating to both the spells has to be decided after affording an opportunity to the applicant. It is pointed out that the applicant is retiring from service on 31.05.2026. Before her retirement, well in advance, such a decision should be taken. Therefore, we direct the 1st respondent to take a decision on the same latest by 30.04.2026.
The Original Application is dismissed with the above direction. No costs.
(Dated, this the 26th day of March, 2026)
V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30'
33
List of Annexures
Annexure A-1. Photocopy of the Charge Memo dated 10-09-2009 of the 1 st Respondent.
Annexure A-2. Photocopy of the Petition dated 28-10-2009 of the applicant to the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A-3. Photocopy of the Order dated 02-02-2010 of the 3 rd respondent Annexure A-4. Photocopy of the Representation dated 02-04-2011 of the applicant to the 3rd Respondent Annexure A-5. Photocopy of the Order dated 16-06-2011 of the 2 nd Respondent.
Annexure A-6 Photocopy of the Inquiry Report dated 01-02-2012 along with Covering Letter dated 08-02-2012 of the 1st respondent Annexure A-7. Photocopy of the Representation dated 21-02-2012 of the applicant to the 1st Respondent.
Annexure A-8. True copy of the Memo dated 30-03-2012 of the 1 st respondent.
Annexure A-9. Photocopy of the Appeal dated 19-05-2012 of the applicant to the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A-10. Photocopy of the Memo dated 11-11-2013 of the Director, PTC, Madurai & Appellate Authority.
Annexure A-11. Photocopy of the Order dated 12-05-2015 of the 3rd respondent Annexure A-12 Photocopy of the Written Brief dated 29-08-2016 of the applicant submitted by the Presenting Officer Annexure A-13. Photocopy of the Written Brief dated 26-09-2016 of the applicant before the Inquiring Authority.
Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30' 34 Annexure A-14. Photocopy of the Inquiry Report dated 18-10-2016 of the Asst. Superintendent of POS (OD & Mktg), Tiruvalla Division. Annexure A-15: Photocopy of the Letter dated 27-10-2016 of the 1st respondent.
Annexure A-16: Photocopy of the Representation dated 09-11-2016 of the applicant to the 1st respondent Annexure A-17. True copy of the Order dated 28-02-2017 of the 1 st Respondent.
Annexure A-18. Photocopy of the Appeal dated 12-04-2017 of the applicant to the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A-19 Photocopy of the Order dated 07-06-2019 of the 3 rd respondent Annexure A-20. Photocopy of the Revision Petition dated 15-10-2019 with covering letter dated 02-11-2019 of the applicant to the 4th respondent Annexure A-21: Photocopy of the Memo dated 07-11-2019 of the 3 rd respondent.
Annexure A-22. Photocopy of the Representation dated 17-12-2019 of the applicant to the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A-23 True copy of the Order dated 09-06-2021 of the 4 th Respondent Annexure A-24. Photocopy of the Proceedings dated 14-08-2009 of the 1 st respondent Annexure A-25. Photocopy of the Proceedings dated 16-03-2009 of the 3 rd Respondent.
*************
Deepa S 2026.03.26 14:05:51+05'30'