Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Kiran Kumar vs Deptt Of Posts on 23 July, 2025
1
O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00211/2023
Order Reserved on: 30.06.2025
Date of Order: 23.07.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE B. K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A)
Kiran Kumar,
Age: 32 years,
S/o Late Sanjeeva Mogaveera,
EX GDS BPM, Halnadu BO,
Udupi Postal Division,
Udupi-576101,
Residing at: "Padmavathi Nilaya",
Halnadu, Badabettu-576211,
Kundapur Taluk, ...Applicant.
(By Advocate, Shri P. Kamalesan.)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Reptd by Secretary,
Department of Post,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
ajay mudgal
ajay CAT Bangalore
2025.07.28
mudgal16:47:30
+05'30'
2
O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
2. Chief Post Master General,
Karnataka Circle,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
3. Post Master General,
S.K. Region,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
4. Director of Postal Services,
S.K. Region,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
5. Superintendent of Post offices,
Udupi Postal Dn,
Udupi - 576 101. ...Respondents
(By Shri S. Prakash Shetty, Sr. Panel Counsel)
ORDER
PER: MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A)
In this OA, the applicant has asked for the following reliefs:
1. (i) Quash the Superintendent of Post offices, Udupi Dn, Udupi-
576101, Memo No. F4-2/2019-20 dated: 27-6-2022. vide Annexure-A9 issued by respondent No.5
(ii) Quash the O/O Post Master General, south Karnataka Region, Bangalore - 560001 letter No. SK/STA/9-3/18/2022/I dated: 23/27-12-2022 - Annexure-A11 issued by respondent No.3.
(iii) Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant with consequential benefits.
ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 3 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(iv) Direct the respondents to refund Rs. 2,12,000/- with interest.
(iii) Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Brief Facts in Nutshell:
i. The applicant, while working as GDS BPM at Halnadu BO at Udupi Postal Dn, was placed under put off duty from 24.9.2019, as disciplinary proceedings against him were contemplated. A Charge memo was served on 21.4.2020, and departmental inquiry was conducted against her. I.O.
submitted his report on 30.4.2020, wherein it was held as that the charges were proved against the applicant. The disciplinary authority issued proceedings on 27.6.2022, by imposing the penalty of removal from engagement. The applicant submitted an appeal to the Appellate Authority on 14-7-2022, which was rejected on 23/27-12-2022. Hence, the O.A. ii. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that a charge memo was issued after 225 days, from the date of put off duty of applicant. The disciplinary proceedings were concluded, after 790 days from the date of issue of charge memo. He submits that in accordance with DOPT OM dated: 1972, the investigation and departmental proceedings should be concluded within 180 days. In the instant case, no charge memo was issued within 90 days, nor departmental proceedings concluded within 180 days. Therefore removal from engagement is in violation of Hon'ble Apex Court order and DOPT OM.
ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 4 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE iii. Narrating the chronological sequence of events, the counsel for the applicant states that while, the applicant was working as GDS BPM Halnadu BO under Udupi Postal Dn, Udupi, he was kept under put off duty from 24-9-2019, by Superintendent of Post Offices, Udupi Dn, Udupi-576101, vide Memo No.F4-2/2019-20 dated: 24-9-2019. Before this order, the applicant had already credited total sum of Rs.2,12,000/- on 7-9-2019 and 11-9-2019. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Udupi dn, issued restoration of alleged withdrawal of amounts vide Memo F4-2/2019-20 dated: 1-1-2020, 9-3-2020, and 25-6-2020.
iv. Despite the above the Superintendent of Post Offices, Udupi Dn, Udupi -576101 issued Memorandum of charges under provisions of Rule 10 of GDS( Conduct and engagement rules 2011, to applicant vide Memo NO.F4-2/2019-20 dated:
21-4-2020 and issued order for appointing a I.O, vide Memo No.F4-2/2019-20 dated: 12-5-2020.
v. He submits that, on completion of the enquiry the Superintendent of Post Offices, Udupi Dn, vide letter No.F4- 2/2019-20 dated: 4-5-2022, forwarded the I.O. report dated:
30-4-22 to the applicant.
vi. The applicant submitted his defense brief to Superintendent of Post Offices Udupi Dn, on 28-5- 2022. vii. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Udupi dn, issued proceedings dated: 27-6-2022, imposing the penalty of removal from engagement of applicant.
ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 5 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE viii. The applicant submitted an appeal to the Appellate Authority on 14-7- 2022, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority, vide dated: 23/27-12-2022.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was kept under put off duty from 24-9-2019 and charge Memo was issued on 21-4-2020, after 225 days, which is in violation of the laid down orders. In this regard, he places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated: 16-2- 2015, in OA 1912/2015 in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291. In this case, it was held as follows:
"We therefore direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer".
4. The applicant counsel submits that according to DOPT OM No.39/33/72-Esst(A) dated: 16-12-1972 the total period of suspension viz both in respect of investigation and disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily exceed six months.
5. Therefore, the extension of suspension and conclusion of department proceedings were in violations of Hon'ble Apex Court order and DOPT OM dated: 16-12-1972. Hence, the impugned order should be set aside.
6. The applicant counsel further states that all the Article of charges were related to accepting money from certain individuals and failure to account for the same in BO accounts. However, during the course of the inquiry none of the prime witnesses were examined and there was no opportunity was given to the applicant to cross examine them witness. This was repeated for all the Articles of charges. Despite the failure to ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 6 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE produce the main PWs during the course of the inquiry, the I.A. held that charges were proved.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant, repeatedly pointed out that all the five charges against the applicant were related to accepting money from the five PWs. The list of 15 witnesses was cited on Annexure IV, given on page 51. However, none of the PWs, i.e. PWs No. 1, 2, 4, 7 & 12, from whom the money was alleged to have been taken was examined during the course of the enquiry, due to which the applicant was denied the opportunity to cross examine them. This was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Emphasising the importance of examination of PWs during the course of an enquiry, he invited our attention to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 893 of 2007, in the case of L.I.C. of India & Anr. vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2011- (1) SLJ 201. In this, it was held as follows:
".....mere tendering of documents is not sufficient to prove the charges. The document has to be proved by the prosecution witnesses who are liable to be subjected to be cross examine by the delinquent official. The Apex Court has considered the question "whether in absence of any oral evidence having been tendered by the appellant, and especially in absence of putting their own defence to the respondents during his cross examination in the court what is the effect of documents filed by appellants and marked as exhibits". The counsel states that according to the Hon'ble Apex Court the mere admission of documents in evidence is not sufficient. The documentary evidence is required to be proved for which the witnesses need to be examined."
ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 7 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
8. The counsel submits that for reasons best known to the Inquiring officer and the Presenting Officer, they have chosen to avoid the attendance of the PWs who had given the complaints during the course of the Preliminary Enquiry. Thus, he was denied reasonable opportunity to defend myself as per the Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant, stated that in his appeal to the Appellate Authority against the penalty of engagement of service, the appellant had denied his culpability and rejected the findings/reports of I.A. with regards to Article of charges I to V. He stated that the relevant documents viz Exp-1, Exp-6, Exp-8, Exp-13, Exp-14, Exp-18, Exp-19, Exp-25, Exp-27, Exp- 30, Exp-31were recorded in absence of any independent public witnesses and therefore, could not be relied upon. They suffered from ambiguity. He alleged that almost all the statements were dictated/recorded, by deliberately avoiding the public witnesses by officers. The counsel stated that all this was possible by the simple method of delaying the Disciplinary Proceedings. In this regard, he once again drew our attention to the following para of the SC judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291, cited supra which reads as follows:
"14. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Charge sheet is not served "on, the delinquent officers/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Charge sheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 8 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the; Government in the prosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the' interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."
10. He has further placed reliance on departmental OM which reads as follows:
"45. In this Department's O.M. No. 39/39/7p-Estt.(A), dated the, 4th February, 1971, it is provided that every effort should be made to file the charge sheet in court or serve the charge sheet on, the Government servant, as the case may be, within three months of the date of the suspension, and in cases in which it may not be possible to do so, the disciplinary authority, should report the matter to the next higher authority explaining the reasons for the delay. It is further provided in this Department's O.M. No. 39/33/72- ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 9 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Estl.(A), dated the 16th December, 1972 that while the O.M. of 4th February, 1971, would continue to be operative in regard to cases pending in courts in respect of the period of suspension pending investigation' before the filing of a charge sheet in the court as also in respect of serving of the charge sheet on the Government servant in cases of departmental proceedings, in cases other than those pending in the courts, the total period of suspension viz. both in respect of investigation and disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily exceed six months. In exceptional cases where it is not possible to adhere to this time limit, the disciplinary authority should report the matter to the next higher authority, explaining the reasons for the delay."
11. He has finally concluded by inviting our attention to certain paras of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 893 of 2007, in the case of L.I.C. of India & Anr. vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2011- (1) SLJ 201, which reads as follows:
"25. No doubt, it is true that failure to prove the defence does hot amount to an admission, nor does it reverse or discharge the burden of proof of the plaintiff but still the duty cast on the defendants has to be discharged by adducing oral evidence, which the appellants have miserably failed to do. Appellants, even though a defaulting party, committed breach and failed to carry out a legislative imposition, then had still to convince this Court as to what was the just cause for doing the same. Thus looking to the matter from any angle, it is fully established that appellants had miserably failed to prove and establish their defence in the case.
ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 10 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
26. We are of the firm opinion that mere admission of document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. As has been mentioned herein above, despite perusal of the record, we have not been able to come to know as to under what circumstances respondent plaintiff had admitted those documents. Even otherwise, his admission of those documents cannot carry the case of the appellants any further and much to the prejudice of the respondent."
12. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant was working as Grameen Dak Sevak Branch Post Master (GDS BPM) at Halnadu Branch Post Office under Udupi Division. The applicant was placed under put off duty (POD) from 24.09.2019, as disciplinary proceedings against him were contemplated. Memorandum of article of charges was served, departmental inquiry conducted and charges were proved against him. Applicant was removed from service and he preferred appeal which was rejected. The entire process, was conducted strictly as per the laid down rules and regulations.
13. He further stated that the Applicant had admitted his guilt by crediting amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- (Rs. two lakh ten thousand) to department on 11.09.2019, along with a letter to Post master, Kundapura Post Office, in which he has confessed the same (Annexure R -1).
ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 11 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
14. He further submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291, was specific to that case only and cannot be applied to all situations and circumstances.
15. He further stated that the DOPT order cited in OA relates to the general/broad instructions related to the disciplinary proceedings and are strictly mandatory in nature. In this regard, he points out that the subsequent para of the DOPT order reads as follows:
"In exceptional cases where it is not possible to adhere to this time limit (six months), the disciplinary authority should report to the next higher authority explaining the reasons for delay."
16. Responding to the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant, that the most important PWs were not examined, he stated that an organization cannot put round the clock surveillance on each and every official to confirm whether he has collected money from customer or not when he is posted in cash counter. It is the inherent responsibility of every official to handle cash properly with due diligence. He points out that even if amount is not collected from customers, but deposit entries are made in the passbook with date stamp impression, counter official will be held responsible for entries as department is liable to refund such amount to depositor. He stated that as per the rule position Passbook entry should always succeed collection of amount and when pass book entries are made, it is implied that amount has to be credited to department by concerned official. He averred that as many as Twenty eight deposit entries of Rs. 1000/- each from ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 12 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 20.01.2017 to 01.04.2019 were made in the pass book by the applicant without making corresponding entries in departmental documents which clearly establishes that these were conscious and deliberate actions of the applicants, intended for misappropriation of cash.
17. He further pointed out that the applicant never tried to contest during inquiry that pass book entries were not made by him and date stamp impression made against entries were not of his office to prove his innocence. Moreover, the very fact that the applicant had signed below the last entry in the passbook, indicates that he has thoroughly checked the transactions. If he had not done those transactions he would not have signed the pass book.
18. These pass book entries with impression of date stamp of office, create liability on department to refund the amount to customer with admissible interest. Department cannot cheat the customers for having employed persons with doubtful integrity and such officials have to be treated with iron hand only, for having tarnished image of department. Hence realizing his fault, applicant has made good the amount to department voluntarily.
19. Stating that the applicant had applied the same modus operandi in all the transactions, it comprehensively proved the Articles of charges. He also averred that the total amount of misappropriation was Rs. 4,02550/ as per Annexure R-50. This was only tip of an iceberg and all the misappropriations could not be reflected in charge sheet.
ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 13 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
20. He also pointed out that though the applicant had ample opportunity to deny contents of statements of depositors during investigation itself but he admitted unconditionally by signing them. He also refused to cross examine investigating officer.
21. He further reiterated that the remittance of Rs. 2,10,000 by the applicant is admission of guilt on his part.
22. We have given thoughtful consideration to the averments and arguments of the learned counsels for the applicant and respondents. We have also carefully gone through all the documents and records including the judgments of the Superior Courts, relevant sections and clauses of the departmental rules etc., which were brought on record by the respective counsels. Based on the material made available to us, the following facts are established:
a. The applicant's Order put off duty was issued on 24.9.2019, whereas the Charge Memo was issued on 21.4.2020, i.e. after expiry of 225 days, which was well beyond the stipulated 90 days. Likewise, the disciplinary proceedings were concluded, after 790 days from the date of issue of charge memo, which was beyond the stipulated 6 months. In this regard, the relevant portions of the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291, dated 16.02.2015, states as follows:
"......21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 14 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension........
......... We recognise that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law. and would not be contrary to the interests of justice.."
b. In pursuance of the judgement cited Supra, DoPT, Government of India vide F.No.11012/04/2016- Estt.(1) dated 23rd August, 2016 issued directions which are reproduced as below:
".......The undersigned is directed to refer to DoP&T's O.M. No. 11012/17/2013-Estt.A-III dated 3rd July, 2015 on the above-mentioned subject and to say that in a recent case, Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union of India Civil Appeal No. 1912 of 2015 dated 16/02/2015, the Apex Court has directed as follows:
"14 We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 15 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence........ Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."
2. In compliance of the above judgement, it has been decided that where a Government servant is placed under suspension, the order of suspension should not extend beyond three months, if within this period the charge-sheet is not served to the charged officer. As such, it should be ensured that the charge sheet is issued before expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension. As the suspension will lapse in case this time line is not adhered to, a close watch needs to be kept at all levels to ensure that charge sheets are issued in time.
3. It should also be ensured that disciplinary proceedings are initiated as far as practicable in cases where an investigating agency is seized of the matter or criminal proceedings have been launched. Clarifications in this regard have already been issued vide O.M. No. 11012/6/2007-Estt.A-III dated 21.07.2016."
23. Furthermore, the counsel for the applicant has repeatedly pointed out that the crucial PWs were not examined at all, thereby depriving the applicant the opportunity of their cross examination. It is also stated that several documents and records were made to be signed under duress. Overall speaking, the principles of natural justice were not followed at all and the entire departmental enquiry was in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and also the Departmental Rules.
24. In response, the counsel for respondents has brought on record that there was no violation in conduct of the Disciplinary Proceedings. Let us examine the conflicting assertions, in detail.
ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 16 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
25. Non-service of the Memorandum of Charge within 90 days in violation of the extant Rules & Judgements of the Apex court: The averments of the learned counsel for the Applicant & learned counsel for the Respondents have been brought on record and discussed at length above and need not be repeated here. The Memorandum of charge was served upon the applicant on 21.4.2020 i.e after 225 days of the order of put off duty.
This is in conformity with the GSR No 156 dated 19th October, 2022, which is spelt out below for ease of reference:
"1. Short title and commencement: (1) These rules may be called the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Amendment Rules, 2022.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
2. In the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, in rule 10, in sub-rule (7), for the proviso, the following provisos shall be substituted, namely:-
"Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2), if the Government servant continues to be under detention and in such case the ninety-days' period shall be computed from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later:
Provided further that in a case where no charge sheet is issued under these rules, the total period, under suspension or deemed suspension, as the case may be, including any extended ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 17 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE period in terms of sub-rule (6) shall not exceed,
-
(a) two hundred seventy days from the date of order of suspension, if the Government servant is placed under suspension in terms of clause (a) of sub-rule (1); or
(b) two years from the date of order of suspension, if the Government servant is placed under suspension in terms of clause (aa) or clause
(b) of sub-rule (1) as the case may be; or
(c) two years from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later, in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2).".
26. Adverting to the time limits set by the DOPT and also the judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291, it would be beneficial to examine the subsequent judgments and the extant DOPT OMs. They are discussed as below:
a. In the judgement of the Madurai Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of The Superintending Engineer & Ors. Vs. Mohan Kumar in WA (MD) No.1827 of 2021 delivered on 20th January, 2022, referring to the DoPT instructions dated 26th April, 2016, it was held as follows:.
"....16. It was instructed that the time limit of three months on suspension cases is applicable only to the cases arising out of departmental disciplinary enquiries pertaining to non- vigilance and/or any non-criminal cases and the said time limit is not applicable to suspension of an employee facing criminal case ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 18 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE or grave corruption charges pending against him."
b. Furthermore, para 20 of the same judgement mentions as follows:
"......20. In the case of Bimal Kumar Mohanty (supra), the Apex Court held that suspension is not a punishment, but only one for forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. It is with the direction that each case may be considered on its facts and taking into account the gravity of the offence or the misconduct. The interference with the order of suspension should not be driven in reference to a judgment, but needs to be determined on facts and after considering the rules governing the delinquent. Judicial review in such matters should be minimal. In the instant case, the allegation against the delinquent is quite serious, as he not only demanded but accepted bribe and was caught red-handed by the Anti- Corruption Department. The aforesaid were the relevant facts, but were not considered by the learned Single Judge while causing interference with the order of suspension. It is even after ignoring the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in the case of A. Srinivasan (supra), wherein it was categorically held that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) does not evolve a general principle for causing interference with the order of suspension if charge-sheet is not served or charge memo is not filed within three months of the order of suspension. The finding of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.Srinivasan (supra) has even been ignored, though binding in nature."
c. Furthermore, in the judgement of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the case of Vikash Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors., WP (C) 16499/2022 dated 01st September, 2023. It was held as follows:
ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 19 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE ".......9. Observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, 1994 (1) L.L.N. 889, after considering the ratio of earlier decisions may be beneficially referred in this regard:
............... Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharging the duties of office or post held by him. In other words, it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruit and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent haying had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry, etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. It would be another thing if the action actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge."
10. xxx xxx xxx
11.......... This Court relying upon earlier orders passed in Govt. NCT of Delhi v. Dr.Rishi Anand, W.P.(C) 8134/2017 decided on September 13, 2017 declined to interfere with the continued suspension order of the petitioner considering the allegations against the petitioner and held that there was serious and valid consideration to justify the continued suspension of the petitioner. The observations in para 17 to 19 in Dr. Rishi Anand (supra) are also apt to be noticed and clearly spell out that power of ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 20 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE competent authority to pass orders of suspension have not been extinguished in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) merely because the charge-sheet is not issued within three months of suspension but the said power can be exercised if good reasons are forthcoming:
"17. It may not always be possible for the government to serve the charge sheet on the officer concerned within a period of 90 days, or even the extended period, for myriad justifiable reasons............." On a reading of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), we are of the view that the Supreme Court has not denuded the Government of its authority to continue/ extend the suspension of the government servant - before, or after the service of the charge sheet - if there is sufficient justification for it. The Supreme Court has, while observing that the suspension should not be extended beyond three months - if within this period the memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer, has stopped short of observing that if the charge memo/ charge-sheet is not issued within three months of suspension, the suspension of the government servant shall automatically lapse, without any further order being passed by the Government. No such consequence - of the automatic lapsing of suspension at the expiry of three months if the charge memo/ charge-sheet is not issued during that period, has been prescribed.
................................................
18. The direction issued by the Supreme Court is that the currency of the suspension should not be extended beyond three months, if the charge memorandum/ charge-sheet is not issued within the period of 3 months of suspension. But it does not say that if, as a matter of fact, it is so extended it would be null and void and of no effect. The power of the competent authority to pass orders under Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules extending the suspension has not been extinguished by the Supreme Court. The said power can be exercised if good reasons therefor are forthcoming.
ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 21 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE xxx xxx xxx
34. For the foregoing reasons, the reference is answered by holding that:
(i) The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary, supra, does not lay down absolute proposition of law that an order of suspension cannot be continued beyond the period of three months if the memorandum of charges/chargesheet has not been served within three months, or if memorandum of charges/chargesheet is served without reasoned order of extension. (ii) The judgment in R. Balaji, supra, has no reference to the earlier judgments of co-equal strength and is thereby rendered per incuriam."
27. Hence, it is seen that the serving of charge memo and the duration of disciplinary proceedings are fully covered under the DOPT Orders and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as cited supra.
28. It is also quite clear from the remittance of Rs. 2,10,000/- along with the letter of the applicant dated 11-09-2019 that the applicant had admitted his guilt. This letter cited as (Annexure R - 1) is reproduced below ad verbatim for ease of convenience:
"From To Kiran Kumar, B.P.M. HalnaduB.O A/W Basrur B.S.O. To The post master Kundapura post office, Kundapura Dear Sir, ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 22 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Sub: Regarding depositing money to UCR account.
I have been working as a post master of Halnadu post office, during my tenure there are certain differences of amount in some of the pass book, those amounts had been used by me for myself. I am intending to deposit the said amount to U.C.R account.
I do not know the particulars of account, because when I am going for collection, received amount had been deposited to the respective account I do not know how much amount I had received from the account holder. This day with my own wish I am depositing a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- (two lakhs ten thousand) to the U.C.R. account of the department. In case if I have deposited more amount to U.C.R. account, then after my enquiry I request hereby to return excess amount deposited. I am requesting hereby to receive Rs. 2,10,000/- and to issue U.C.R. receipt.
Thanking you Place: Kundapura Date: 11-09-2019 Signed by Kiran Kumar BPM Halnadu P.O. A/W Basrur S/0.
576211."
29. Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that crucial PWs were not examined, thereby, ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 23 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE depriving the applicant the opportunity to cross examine them, it is a settled principle of law that the prosecution is not obligated to examine every single witness listed in the charge sheet/charge memo. They can choose which witnesses to examine based on the relevance and strength of their testimony.
The prosecution's decision not to examine a witness does not automatically lead to an adverse inference against them. It is the prerogative of the Inquiring Authority to decide which Prosecution Witnesses to examine and which ones to be given up. It is not essential that all the PWs which were cited should be examined. In this regard, it would be beneficial to refer to the relevant portions of the judgment of Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Dalbir Singh, in Civil Appeal No. 5848/2021, AIR (2021) SC 4504. The relevant paras are as follows:
"21. ... A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh 3 was dealing with the issue of non-examination of passengers when the allegation against the conductor was non-issuance of the tickets. This Court held that in a domestic enquiry, strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply and that all materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 24 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE reasonable nexus and credibility. This Court held as under:
"4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case-law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The 'residuum' rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 25 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE passages from American Jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence -- not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. ..........."
30. There is nothing brought on record in support of the contention of the applicant in his representation to the Appellate Authority that documents were recorded in absence of independent witnesses and/or were forcefully dictated/recorded. In fact, the applicant was present throughout the enquiry which was held from 22.09.2020 to 25.02.2022 and was provided with copies of all the documents.
31. It is abundantly clear from the above facts and circumstances, that Disciplinary Proceedings were conducted in a proper manner as per the laid down Conduct Rules. There is nothing on record to show that any malafide was involved.
32. There are a catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts which indicate that the Courts and Tribunals ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 26 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE can interfere in Disciplinary Proceedings in very limited situations and circumstances. In brief, the Situations in which court can interfere in departmental proceedings are delineated below:
A. Violation of Natural Justice:
If the principles of natural justice, such as the right to a fair hearing or the right to cross-examine witnesses, are violated, the court may intervene. B. Violation of Statutory Regulations: If the departmental inquiry was conducted contrary to the prescribed statutory rules and regulations, the court can step in.
C. Perverse or Arbitrary Findings: If the findings of the disciplinary authority are found to be perverse, arbitrary, or not supported by any evidence, the court can interfere.
D. Extraneous Considerations:
If the disciplinary authority's decision is based on considerations outside the scope of the evidence or the merits of the case, the court may intervene. E. Disproportionate Punishment: If the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct, the court may consider it a ground for interference, although courts are generally reluctant to substitute their own judgment on punishment. F. Lack of Jurisdiction or Bias:
If the disciplinary authority lacks the jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry or if there is a demonstrable bias against the delinquent employee, the court may intervene.
ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 27 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE G. Violation of Statutory Rules: If the disciplinary proceedings violate any specific statutory rules governing such proceedings, the court can interfere.
H. No Evidence:
If the disciplinary authority's findings are not supported by any evidence, the court can intervene.
A. In this regard, for ease of convenience, relevant extract of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, in para nos. 12, 13, 16 & 17 are cited below:
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (2015) 2 SCC 610 (1977) 2 SCC 491 (2014) 4 SCC 108
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 28 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.
16. These principles have been succinctly summed up by the living legend and centenarian V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. in State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh [(1977) 2 SCC 491:
1977 SCC (L&S) 298]. To quote the unparalleled and inimitable expressions: (SCC p. 493, para 4) "4. ... in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor textbooks, although we have been taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 29 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good."
33. All the contentions and averments of the learned counsel for applicant have been adequately addressed and answered by the learned counsel for the respondents. Nothing has been brought on record by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Disciplinary Proceedings which were conducted against the applicant, suffered from any of the infractions mentioned above.
34. (a) Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority (Superintendent of Post offices, Udupi Division, Udupi) vide Memo No. F4-
2/2019-20, dated 27-6-2022, passed the Order of Removal from Engagement, for the Applicant after due consideration of the inquiry report dated 30.04.2022.
(b) Subsequently, the Appellate Authority, having considered all the points put forth in the appeal dated 14.07.2022 of the appellant, issued a detailed and well-reasoned speaking order with cogent reasons for each of the grounds raised by the applicant and rejected the appeal vide Memo No. SK/STA/9- 3/18/2022/I, dated 23/27-12-2022.
35. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Disciplinary Proceedings and the punishment imposed. Hence, the O.A is liable to be dismissed.
ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.28 mudgal16:47:30 +05'30' 30 O.A.No.170/00211/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
36. The O.A is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B. K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/am/
ajay mudgal
ajay CAT Bangalore
2025.07.28
mudgal16:47:30
+05'30'