Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
K K Balan Pillai vs D/O Post on 17 February, 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.180/00263/2016
Tuesday, this the 17th day of February, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
K.K. Balan Pillai, aged 55 years, S/o.K.M.Kunju Pillai, Postal Assistant,
Cherthala- 688524, residing at Geetha Bhavan, Mannancherry,
Alappuzha-688538.
-Applicant
[By Advocate: Mr. Vineeth Komalachandran]
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government,
Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications, Government of India,
New Delhi - 110 001
2. The Director of Postal Services, Central Region, O/o. The Postmaster
General, Central Region, Eranakulam 682020
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Alappuzha Postal Division,
Alappuzha 688 012.
4. The Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum-695 033.
-Respondents
[By Advocate: Mr.Brijesh A.S., ACGSC]
The application having been heard on 17.12.2025, the Tribunal on
17.02.2026 delivered the following order:
Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30'
O.A.No.263/2016 2
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member Applicant, a former Postal Assistant in Cherthala Post Office, is aggrieved by Annexures-A1, A3 and A5 orders, by which his one increment fell due on 01.07.2014 has been withheld for a period of three years without cumulative effect. Appeal preferred against the said order was also rejected by Annexure-A5. Aggrieved by the same, he has approached the Tribunal seeking to quash Annexures-A1, A3 and A5 and to grant such other reliefs as may deem fit.
2. The applicant entered service as RTP Postal Assistant on 29.10.1982 and was then posted as regular Postal Assistant and SPM in Pathanamthitta from 30.09.1988. Later, he was transferred to Alappuzha in 1998. He is physically handicapped since his right leg was amputated in 2011 due to Diabetes Mellitus. According to him, he has also suffered massive heart attack and underwent open heart surgery in Lakeshore Hospital. He has mother, wife and two children. For about 10 years, till 2015, he was remaining neutral by disassociating himself from all employees unions which had caused enmity against him resulting in fake and fictitious complaints.
3. According to the applicant, in spite of his illness, at the instance of office bearers of trade unions, during 2010-2012 he was transferred from Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30' O.A.No.263/2016 3 Alappuzha Collectorate Post Office to Kavalam, a water-logged area with no transport and medical facilities. Then on 12.04.2011 he was transferred to Mankombu Thekkekkara Post Office which is also a water-logged area.
4. According to the applicant, there was a call for national strike on 20.02.2013 and 21.02.2013. As he did not belong to any trade union, he kept the office open; he was threatened by trade union members including one Varghese Mathew, who was being engaged on daily wages in his office who belongs to left formation. The applicant had chosen not to engage him further, which led to ill-will towards him. According to the applicant, he was served with Annexure-A1 charge memo, against which he filed explanation. The Mankombu Thekkekkara Post Office and Champakkulam panchayath office are situated in the same building. As regards the first allegation in the Annexure-A1 charge, it is submitted that the rubber stamp impression of NREGA list depicted as Mankombu Thekkekkara and he never misled the officials. Regarding the second allegation, it is submitted that the said Varghese Mathew was inimically disposed towards him and the department was entirely relying on his statement, who was disengaged for obstructing the functions of the office on strike day.
5. According to the applicant, he had opened the Post Office on the strike days despite protest raised by local politicians including Varghese Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30' O.A.No.263/2016 4 Mathew. He gave Annexure-A2 explanation, but the division head did not conduct any enquiry and he was not given opportunity of being heard. There is no finding in Annexure-A3 that he is responsible for delaying the payment to NREGA workers. The allegation of false claim of SDPA was based on the statement of Varghese Mathew.
6. Even though he had preferred appeal, that was rejected. Both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority had dealt with the matter with biased and closed mind. The charge memo was issued after making up mind against the applicant. Annexure-A1 reflects the mind set of the disciplinary authority. The very Articles of charge are vague and cloudy. There is violation of principles of natural justice. His contention that the NREGA employees were being dealt with by the counter PA was not considered by the respondents. The statement as regards the Post Office jurisdiction of the Champakkulam Panchayath, though was explained, has been totally disregarded.
7. According to the applicant, the enquiry officer did not ascertain the true facts and statements of the case. He was not given opportunity to verify the veracity of the resolution allegedly passed by the Champakkulam Grama Panchayath. He had also submitted in the explanation that the said Varghese Mathew and local political leaders had threatened him on the dates Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30' O.A.No.263/2016 5 of the postal strike. The payment under SDPA wages was disbursed with the approval of the divisional office and Varghese Mathew had not made any objection at the time of making the payment. The receipts signed by him show that Rs.1,560/- was paid towards SDPA wages for six days. If he had not worked for six days, he would not have signed the receipt. Absence of his signature in the attendance register for two days has been duly explained by him in the statement dated 31.12.2013.
8. According to the applicant, his abrupt transfer had compelled him to vacate the postal headquarters held for 12 years at Alappuzha. The complaint filed by Varghese Mathew was denied by him. No confronting enquiry was held to find out the truth. The appellate authority also did not consider the factual and legal contentions. Bonafides of the complaint were not looked into. He is totally innocent and false allegations were raised against him. Thus he has approached the Tribunal seeking the aforestated reliefs.
9. The respondents filed a detailed reply. According to them, while working as SPM, Alappuzha Collectorate Post Office, allegations of financial mismanagement were raised against him and for the smooth conduct of the departmental enquiry he was transferred and posted as SPM, Kavalam. Later, on his request, he was transferred to Mankombu Thekkakara Sub Post Office, Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30' O.A.No.263/2016 6 which is situated adjacent to Alappuzha-Changanassery main road, which was convenient, having road transport facilities. Thereafter several complaints were received against him from Mankombu Thekkekara. The Grama Panchayath also passed a resolution against the applicant, following which he was posted as Postal Assistant in Cherthala Head Office.
10. According to the respondents, the complaints were got enquired through the ASP (OD) of Alappuzha Division, following which Rule 16 proceedings was initiated against the applicant. Ultimately, the 3 rd respondent passed orders withholding his one increment fell due on 01.07.2014 for a period of three years without cumulative effect. In the appeal, that order was confirmed.
11. According to the respondents, none of the union representatives or office bearers has raised any vague and fictitious complaint against the applicant. He was transferred from Collectorate Sub Office to Kavalam finding that his continuance would jeoparadize the smooth investigation into the complaints against him in connection with the fraudulent claim of omission bills relating to NSC/KVP. Since Kavalam is a water-logged area, necessitating ferry crossing, he was given transfer to Mankombu Thekkekara Sub Office, which is adjacent to the Alappuzha-Changanassery main road.
12. According to the respondents, disciplinary proceeding was Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30' O.A.No.263/2016 7 initiated against him on the basis of public complaint and resolution passed by the Panchayath authorities alleging his misbehaviour with the customers including NREG account holders. It may be true that Varghese Mathew might have retaliated against him for the stubborn attitude shown by him on the strike days.
13. Even though the Postal Assistant is looking after the SB counter matters, the SPM is supervising all transactions made at the SB counter. NREG account holders were against the applicant. Mankombu Thekkekara Post Office and Champakkulam Panchayath Office are not in the same building. There is no such Panchayath by name Mankombu Thekkekara. His contention that the entire issues were the after effect of non-participation in the strike is incorrect.
14. Referring to Annexures-R1 and R2, it is submitted that punishments were imposed on the applicant against his misconduct during 07.11.2014 and 05.02.2016.
15. After initiating Rule 16 proceedings, he was given opportunity to make his written representation. The allegations of NREGA workers were got enquired and their statements were recorded. There was no complaint against the counter PA in the office. Proceedings was initiated after getting Annexure-R3 resolution from the Champakkulam Grama Panchayath seeking Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30' O.A.No.263/2016 8 the transfer of the applicant. The SDPA had worked only for four days and was absent on 13.02.2014 and 14.02.2014. The attendance register also shows that he had not worked on those two days. But SDPA allowance was drawn for six days.
16. According to the respondents, the impugned punishment was warranted on documentary as well as oral evidence, it is commensurate with the gravity of the offence. He has approached this Tribunal without exhausting remedy under Rule 29 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, hereinafter referred to as the Rules.
17. According to the respondents, the scope of review in judicial proceedings is very limited and the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of the facts. So long as there is some legal evidence to substantiate the findings, adequacy or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Tribunal. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the departmental enquiry proceedings.
18. Moreover, the Court can intervene only if the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the allegations raised. They have also relied on various authorities in support of their contentions and sought for dismissing the O.A.
19. We heard Sri.Vineeth Komalachandran, learned counsel for the Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30' O.A.No.263/2016 9 applicant and Sri.Alfred Lionel Winston, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents in detail
20. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, once the applicant had denied the allegations, even though it was Rule 16 proceedings, the respondents ought to have conducted an enquiry. But without conducting enquiry, the 3rd respondent proceeded to impose punishment. Though a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, neither that report nor the resolution of the Panchayath was served on him. He had given his explanation. Even though the punishment imposed is not cumulative and the total monetary loss suffered by him is not very high, he has pursued the matter since it is something touching his honesty and integrity. According to the learned counsel, Annexures-R1 and R2 have no bearing in his case. The respondents were acting to the tunes to the office bearers of trade unions since the applicant was not a member of any trade union.
21. Sri. Vineeth Komalachandran has reiterated the contentions in the O.A. and submitted that the 3 rd respondent, while imposing the impugned punishment, did not follow principles of natural justice and opportunity was not afforded to the applicant for adducing his version, that the respondents were acting upon fictitious complaint laid on behalf of Sri.Varghese Mathew, Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30' O.A.No.263/2016 10 who was inimically disposed towards him for the reason that he was disengaged for acting along with persons who had struck work and tried to disrupt the Post Office on 13.02.2014 and 14.02.2014. Moreover, it is submitted that he was not given opportunity to give evidence and that the punishment imposed is disproportionate. This contentions have been denied by the respondents.
22. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions in his support.
I) Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No.20928/2016 (Virendran Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others);
II) Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Crl.M.C.2240/2019 (K.K.Balan Pillai v. State of Kerala and another), whereunder a criminal case registered under Sections 409, 353, 294(b) IPC was quashed by the High Court by its order dated 12.10.2020;
III) Order of this Bench in O.A.247/2010 etc. dated 22.09.2010; IV) Order of this Bench in O.A.211/2010 dated 23.06.2011 and V) Order of the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. 253/2018 dated 30.08.2022.
Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30' O.A.No.263/2016 11 Besides the above, the learned counsel submitted two paper cuttings, through which it is pointed out that the respondents were harassing the applicant, who is a physically handicapped person, he was frequently transferred and unnecessary proceedings were initiated against him at the instance of trade union activists.
23. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel has justified the impugned orders and said that the disciplinary proceedings was initiated and concluded after giving sufficient opportunity to the applicant. After serving the charge memo, his explanation was called for and his statement was recorded by the enquiry officer, that he never wanted a formal enquiry to be conducted and the order was passed strictly in compliance with Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules. It being a proceedings under Rule 16, conduct of formal enquiry is discretionary on the part of disciplinary authority. The punishment imposed was only barring increment for three years without cumulative effect, and on the expiry of the same, he will get the entire increment. The applicant did not seek a detailed enquiry that the applicant was deliberately trying to mislead the respondents. Learned counsel also relied on the following decisions:
I) R.P.Prabhakar v. Union of India (order of the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.230/2014) dated 11.08.2015;
Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30' O.A.No.263/2016 12 II) Order of the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. 864/2020 dated 28.01.2021;
III) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Janaki Iyer v. Union of India and others [2025 Live Law (SC) 655];
IV) Judgment of Allahabad High Court in Union of India and others v.
Babu Ram Verma and another [2014 SCC Online All 4818]; V) Jdgment of the Delhi High Court in Union of India through Secretary, M/o Defence v. Manjeet Singh [2010 SCC Online Del 2837] and VI) Judgment in I.D.L. Chemicals Ltd. v. T.Gattaiah and others [1995 Supp (3) SCC 573]
24. The subject matter of dispute in this O.A. is initiation of proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules by serving Annexure-A1/2 statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour based on which action was proposed to be initiated against the applicant. The following statements of allegations were raised against him:
"Statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour based on which action is proposed to be taken against Sri. K.K. Balan Pillai, PA, Cherthala HO.
Sri. K. K. Balan Pillai had been working as SPM Moncombu Thekkekara SO from 21/4/2011 to 6/4/2013. During that period, Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30' O.A.No.263/2016 13 several complaints were received against him from different quarters. The following two such cases were got enquired through the ASP(OD) of Alappuzha Postal Divisional office and the allegations were found to be proved.
1) The depositors of NREGA accounts standing open at Moncombu Thekkekara PO complained that they are harrassed by Sri. Balanpillai in many ways by not allowing withdrawal in time, wilfully detaining them at the counter for hours together, saying that 'time is over' even before actual closing time etc. etc. Based on the complaints of the NREGA workers, Champakulam Grama Panchayath passed a Resolution against the misbehaviour of SPM Moncombu Thekkekara and sent a copy to the Supdt. of POs Alappuzha, requesting to transfer the SPM from that office. While making enquiry, the ASP (OD) contacted several NREG account holders and found that the allegations against the SPM were true. Moreover, Sri. Balanpillai stated before the ASP(OD) that all the NREGA accounts of Moncombu Thekkekara Post office were those of Moncombu Thekkekara Grama Panchayath and not belonging to Champakulam Grama Panchayath. Actually there does not exist a Grama Panchayath by name "Moncombu Thekkekara". This statement was with ulterior intention to mislead the Enquiry officer to think that the complaint is a concocted one.
2) Sri. Varghese Mathew, who was being engaged as Out-
sourcing PA in the leave vacancies of SPM/PA of Moncombu Thekkekara PO, complained that Sri. K.K. Balan Pillai, had claimed SDPA allowance for 6 days in February 2013 amounting to Rs.1560/- though the SDPA was engaged only for 4 days in that month for which Rs.1040/- only had to be claimed. On enquiry, the ASP(OD) Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30' O.A.No.263/2016 14 detected that as per Attendance register of the office, SDPA was engaged for 4 days only in February 2013 at Moncombu Thekkekara Post office. Sri. Varghese Mathew firmly stated that he was paid SDPA allowance for 4 days only in February 2013.
From the foregoing, it is imputed that Sri. K.K. Balanpillai, while working as Sub Postmaster, Moncombu Thekkekara PO had misbehaved towards the NREGA customers, tried to mislead the Enquiry officer and preferred false claim bill in c/w SDPA engagement and misappropriated Govt. Money. By the above act, Sri.K.K.Balanpillai had failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and behaved in a manner quite unbecoming of a Govt. Servant, in contravention of the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964."
25. Following service of Annexure-A1/2, the applicant gave Annexure-A2 reply on 31.12.2013. He had explained and stated that the matters were not as alleged in the memo of charges. However, as his last contention it was stated that:
"however I sincerely apologize for the lapses if any and request your honour to pardon me. I assure you that I will evince utmost care to discharge my duty to the entire satisfaction of public and my superiors."
26. The 3rd respondent was not satisfied with the explanation and thus by Annexure-A3 order dated 29.01.2014 a penalty of withholding increment falling due on 01.07.2014 was withheld for a period of three years without cumulative effect. The applicant preferred Annexure-A4 appeal Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30' O.A.No.263/2016 15 against the proceedings which ended through Annexure-A5 order of the 2 nd respondent by which the appeal was rejected confirming Annexure-A3 order. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has approached the Tribunal.
27. Annexure-A2 explanation is the foundation of the contentions raised by the applicant either before the appellate authority or before this Tribunal while challenging the proceedings. Initially, it was stated that the applicant has approached this Tribunal without exhausting all the remedies available to him. It was pointed out that he has remedy of filing revision under Rule 29 of CCS(CCA) Rules that before exhausting that remedy, he has approached the Tribunal. But it is the settled principle of law that even without filing a revision, such a proceedings can be challenged before a Court or Tribunal. In fact the revisionary jurisdiction is very limited and what is considered is the legality and correctness of the order. It is not mandatory that revision should have been preferred before filing an O.A. Therefore, such a contention cannot hold good.
28. The learned counsel for the applicant wanted to highlight that the proceedings have ended without following principles of natural justice. In fact the O.A. is lacking in particulars as to how principles of natural justice were not followed. The learned counsel for the applicant wanted to say that as and when the Annexure-A2 explanation was received by the disciplinary authority, Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30' O.A.No.263/2016 16 he should have at once ordered a formal enquiry into the allegations as provided under sub-Rules (3) to (24) of Rule 14 of the Rules. He also relied on certain decisions to that effect. But as a matter of fact, a reading of Rules 16 (1)(b) and 1-A would clearly indicate that a formal enquiry can be called for only in particular circumstances and only if it is found necessary by the disciplinary authority. Rule 16(1)(b) and 1-A read thus:
"...........(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in [sub-rules (3) to (24) of Rule 14], in every case in which the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary;.........
(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government servant under Clause (a) of that sub-rule, to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in [sub-rules (3) to (24) of Rule 14], before making any order imposing on the Government servant any such penalty."
29. In other words, a formal enquiry is necessary only if disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such an enquiry is necessary. Making such an enquiry is discretionary on the part of the disciplinary authority. Such a Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30' O.A.No.263/2016 17 discretion should be exercised with great care and caution and also having regard to the facts of each case and also based on the seriousness of the matter and also the contentions of the delinquent officer.
30. Similarly, clause 1-A, quoted supra, clearly indicates that such a formal enquriy is necessary only if punishment or withholding the increment would adversely affect the amount of pension payable to the applicant or if barring of increment is beyond three years or to withhold increment is with cumulative effect etc. Here, the punishment imposed is withholding increment for three years without cumulative effect. It has been fairly conceded at the Bar that, that did not have any impact on the pension of the applicant, long before his retirement, he had suffered the punishment and the loss sustained by him was not too much. That means, clause(b) of Rule 16(1) and Rule 1-A do not explicitly state about the conduct of a formal enquiry as a matter of course.
31. We have carefully gone through the Annexure-A2 explanation submitted by the applicant. It is very clear that though he wanted to justify and say that he was not responsible for the delay caused to the NREGA workers etc. and that allegation regarding SDPA wages also are not correct, a clear denial of allegations cannot be inferred from his explanation. It is very important that he has never denied in explicit terms that he has not Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30' O.A.No.263/2016 18 committed any misconduct or misbehaviour and that more importantly, he never sought for a formal enquiry into the allegations. In the circumstances, it is the discretion of the disciplinary authority to make a formal enquiry as provided under sub-rules (3) to (24) of Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules.
32. As adverted to earlier, his allegation that principles of natural justice were not followed is lacking in particulars. On a close scrutiny of the contentions of the applicant, right from Annexure-A2, A4 etc. it is clear that the applicant has gradually improved his version. He never wanted a formal enquiry into the allegations. He was only trying to justify his conduct in Annexure-A1/2 allegations. In Annexure-A4 appeal also, he only stated that the allegations are vague and cloudy, that he was not served with the resolution of the Grama Panchayath etc. It is sure that he was not given opportunity to adduce evidence. The question of adducing evidence arises only when a formal enquiry was ordered by the disciplinary authority. Here, as stated earlier, there was no occasion for the 3 rd respondent to make a formal enquiry as the applicant was trying to justify his conduct and secondly, he never made an explicit denial and more importantly, he never sought for a formal enquiry. In the circumstances, in a proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, formal enquiry is necessary only in the given circumstances as already stated above.
Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30' O.A.No.263/2016 19
33. We also notice that immediately after receipt of complaint and the resolution of the Champakkulam Grama Panchayath, a preliminary enquiry was ordered through the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, who conducted enquiry. It is evident that he had recorded the statements of the complainant as well as the applicant and gave a report. There is no contention that the applicant is unaware of the report or that he was not served a copy of the same. Therefore, in a proceedings under Rule 16, which is summary in nature, a formal enquiry is not warranted as a matter of course. After serving the memo of charges his explanation was obtained and having regard to the contentions raised by him in the Annexure-A2 explanation and also based on other materials including the report of the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Annexures-A3 order was passed by the disciplinary authority imposing the punishment.
34. The contention of the applicant is that he was not aware of the complaint given by the account holders of NREGA or the resolution passed by the Panchayath. It may be true that the copy of the resolution or copy of complaints were not supplied to the applicant, for which there was no occasion. But the enquiry officer, who conducted preliminary enquiry had examined some of the complainants, account holders of NREGA workers, and gave a report finding fault with the applicant, which has been referred in Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30' O.A.No.263/2016 20 Annexure-A1.
35. Further, it is also clear that the applicant has tried to mislead the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority stating that there is no such Panchayath like Champakkulam, which was unfounded.
36. Moreover, the version of the applicant is that he was not aware of any complaint by the NREGA account holders. According to him, the counter PA was in charge of attending account holders etc. But the account holders had no complaint against the counter PA and their complaint was against the applicant, who was the Postmaster in charge of the Champakkara Thekkekara Sub Post Office who was doing supervisory works. So, in all probability, they might not have raised any complaint before him, against himself. That is improbable also.
37. Regarding the second allegation, it has come out that the applicant had drawn an amount of Rs.1,560/-in respect of the wages of temporary Postal Assistant for six days. But the said Varghese Mathew was paid only for four days and he had not worked for two days and had not signed the attendance register for two days. Still SDPA allowance was drawn for six days, which was clearly an act of misconduct on the part of the Sub Post Master.
38. As rightly submitted at the Bar, the relevant considerations in a Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30' O.A.No.263/2016 21 disciplinary proceedings before the Tribunal are whether the principles of natural justice has been complied with and whether any prejudice has been caused to the delinquent employee and punishment was imposed without giving him adequate opportunity. Here, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and the charge memo was issued only thereafter; his explanation was called for, he did not request for any formal enquiry; thus after vetting the materials including the preliminary enquiry report and explanation of the applicant as well as other materials, the 3rd respondent, disciplinary authority was convinced that there was misconduct and misbehaviour on the part of the applicant including financial misdemeanor and thus, such a penalty was imposed on him, which stands confirmed by the appellate authority. We have considered Annexure-A5 order also and the appellate authority has rightly rejected the appeal having regard to the entire circumstances made available before him.
39. The scope of interference by the Tribunal in such a proceedings is rather limited. It can only oversee whether principles of natural justice has been followed. It is also evident that strict laws of evidence are not applicable in a domestic enquiry. The proceedings initiated was under Rule 16, opportunity was afforded to the applicant, materials were perused by the disciplinary as well as appellate authorities in proper context and we do not Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30' O.A.No.263/2016 22 find any reason to interfere with the same.
40. Having regard to the punishment also, it is not something that shocks the conscience of the Court and therefore, we find that sufficient materials are not made available for interference by the Tribunal.
The Original Application is thus dismissed. No costs.
(Dated, this the 17th day of February, 2026)
V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30'
O.A.No.263/2016 23
List of Annexures
Annexure A1- A true copy of Memo No. B/B/58 dated 06/12/2013 issued
by the 3rd Respondent
Annexure A2- A true copy of the explanation dated 31/12/2013
submitted by the Applicant to the 3rd Respondent
Annexure A3- A true copy of Order No. B/B/58 dated 29/01/2014 issued
by the 3rd Respondent
Annexure A4- A true copy of the appeal dated 11/03/2014 submitted by
the Applicant
Annexure A5- A true copy of the Order No. ST/7-11/2014 dated
16/07/2015 issued by the Director Postal Services, Central Region (Kerala Circle), Kochi Annexure R1 - True copy of Memo No.G/Misc dated 7-11-2014 Annexure R2- True copy of Memo No.F6/1/2015-16 dated 5-2-2016 Annexure R3- True copy of resolution letter number B4-1133/13 dated 09.04.2013 passed by the Panchayat Authorities Core Annexure R3(a)- True copy of English translation Annexure R4- True copy of judgment dated 11.09.2015 in OA of 1214/2012 Annexure R5- True copy of order dated 13.03.2006 in OA 789/2003 ************* Deepa S 2026.02.17 15:50:51+05'30'