Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Poonam vs D/O Post on 27 March, 2026
1- O.A. No. 1240/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No. 060/1240/2019
Pronounced on: 27.03.2026
Reserved on: 09.03.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Poonam W/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar, aged 31 years, working as Postal
Assistant, Moujgarh SO (Punjab), resident of Mohalla Karnail Singh,
Ward No. 18, Malout (Punjab)-152107 (Group „C‟)
... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Balwinder Singh
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of
Communications & Information Technology, Department of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, New Delhi-110116.
2. Director Postal Services (Region), Office of the Postmaster General,
Punjab West Region, Chandigarh-160017.
3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur-
152001.
Digitally signed
by MAMTA
WADHWA
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Ms. Komal Preet Chauhan
2- O.A. No. 1240/2019
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
(i) To quash the order dated 23.4.2018 (Annexure A-1) vide which the Disciplinary authority, while refusing to conduct any inquiry to hold the applicant guilty of negligence, has imposed the penalty of recovery of Rs. 1,80,000/- in 60 equal installments @ Rs.3000/- per month from her pay due to alleged contributory negligence in loss sustained by department which is based on conjectures and surmises.
(ii) To quash the order dated 29.10.2018 (Annexure A-9) vide which the appeal filed by the applicant against the illegal penalty order has been dismissed without application of any mind and in a most mechanical manner.
(iii) To issue direction to the respondents to drop the charge sheet and consequential penalty and appellate order and refund the recovered amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the date the amount recovered to the actual date of payment.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant, while working Digitally signed as Postal Assistant at Abohar SO and earlier posted at Ferozepur HPO in by MAMTA WADHWA the SOSB Branch during the period from 18.03.2011 to 07.04.2015, came to be issued a charge sheet dated 09.01.2017 (Annexure A-3) alleging that on 05.02.2014 she failed to tally Makhu SO 1-TD LOT 3- O.A. No. 1240/2019 dated 03.02.2014 with the vouchers received and did not point out the non-receipt of the withdrawal/closure voucher pertaining to TD Account No. 90894 in the name of Smt. Paramjit Kaur. It was further alleged that the said account had been fraudulently closed by Late Shri Nirmal Singh, then SPM, Makhu SO, and that due to the alleged lapse on the part of the applicant, the fraud involving misappropriation of government money to the tune of Rs.15,45,426/- during the period 01.02.2013 to 12.04.2014 could not be detected in time. The applicant was thus alleged to have violated Rule 48(ii) of POSB Manual Volume-I and Rule 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
3. The applicant, upon receipt of the charge sheet, sought supply of relevant documents in March, 2017 (Annexure A-6) and was vide letter dated 16.03.2017 (Annexure A-7) asked to inspect the available record. Thereafter, she submitted a detailed reply dated 27.03.2017 (Annexure A-8) denying the allegations and asserting that the withdrawal voucher had in fact been received along with the LOT and was duly forwarded to SBCO in accordance with rules, and that no discrepancy had ever been pointed out by SBCO. It was also her case that relevant records such as "will follow registers" and objection registers were not shown to her and that the same would have substantiated her defence. Without conducting any regular inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 30.03.2017 (Annexure A-9) imposing a penalty of recovery of Rs.1,80,000/- in 45 installments.
Digitally signedby MAMTA WADHWA
4. Aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal dated 11.04.2017 (Annexure A-10), which resulted in the Appellate Authority passing order dated 23.02.2018 (Annexure A-12) setting aside the punishment 4- O.A. No. 1240/2019 order and remitting the matter for de novo consideration. However, upon reconsideration, the Disciplinary Authority again imposed the penalty of recovery of Rs.1,80,000/- in 60 installments vide order dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure A-1). The applicant again preferred an appeal dated 10.05.2018 (Annexure A-13), which came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 29.10.2018 (Annexure A-2), thereby upholding the penalty. The applicant has also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 07.03.2019 (Annexure A-14), whereby in a similar matter relief was granted to a similarly situated employee. Aggrieved against the orders dated 23.04.2018 and 29.10.2018, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of the present Original Application.
5. The impugned action of the respondents has been assailed on the ground that the same is based on no evidence and mere conjectures and surmises. It is contended that despite specific denial of the charges, no regular inquiry was conducted, thereby violating the mandate of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and principles of natural justice. The applicant submits that crucial documents demanded by her were not supplied or even shown, and reliance has been placed upon material such as preliminary inquiry report, DLI/CLI reports and other documents, which were not part of the charge sheet, rendering the entire proceedings vitiated.
Digitally signed 6. It has further been contended that the essential requirement for by MAMTA WADHWA imposing recovery, namely proof of direct negligence leading to loss, has not been established in the present case. The departmental instructions dated 10.02.1975 (Annexure A-4) and 13.02.1981 5- O.A. No. 1240/2019 (Annexure A-5) clearly stipulate that recovery can be effected only when the lapse of the employee is directly responsible for the loss or has facilitated the fraud, which has not been demonstrated in the present case. The applicant maintains that the alleged fraud was committed by Late Shri Nirmal Singh and she had no role in the same, nor was she connected with the Savings Bank transactions where the fraud actually occurred.
7. It is also contended that the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority are based on extraneous material not forming part of the charge sheet and, therefore, cannot be relied upon for proving the charges. The non-production of relevant registers and records, coupled with denial of opportunity to cross-examine or effectively defend, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned orders are further stated to be non-speaking, devoid of reasons, and passed without proper application of mind.
8. The applicant has further contended that even assuming without admitting that there was any lapse, the same does not establish contributory negligence resulting in loss to the Government, as required under the rules. The penalty of recovery imposed is thus stated to be arbitrary and disproportionate. It is also contended that the alleged modus operandi of fraud pertained to the Savings Bank branch and not the sub-account branch where the applicant was posted, and therefore Digitally signed no liability can be fastened upon her. by MAMTA WADHWA
9. The applicant has specifically pleaded that her case is squarely covered by the judgment relied upon as Annexure A-14, wherein in identical circumstances recovery imposed upon a similarly situated 6- O.A. No. 1240/2019 employee was set aside, and therefore she is entitled to the same relief on the principle of parity.
10. Reliance has also been placed upon Kuldip Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 10 to contend that suspicion or presumption cannot take the place of proof even in departmental proceedings.
11. On the aforesaid grounds, it is submitted that the impugned orders dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure A-1) and 29.10.2018 (Annexure A-
2) are illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law and deserve to be quashed.
12. The respondents, by way of written statement, have opposed the Original Application and submitted that the impugned orders dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure A-1) and 29.10.2018 (Annexure A-2) are legal and valid. It is stated that the case pertains to a large-scale misappropriation of Government money by late Shri Nirmal Singh, Ex- SPM, Makhu SO, who during the period from 01.02.2013 to 12.04.2014 defrauded an amount of Rs.15,45,426/- in various SB/TD accounts. The applicant, while working as Postal Assistant in SOSB Branch, Ferozepur HO, failed to detect irregularities in respect of closure of TD Account No. 90894 on 03.02.2014, as the closure voucher was not received along with the LOT dated 03.02.2014, yet she processed the closure on 05.02.2014 without tallying the voucher or verifying SB-3 and signature Digitally signed by MAMTA WADHWA of the account holder. It is contended that the account holder herself denied having closed the account, thereby substantiating procedural lapses on the part of the applicant.
7- O.A. No. 1240/2019
13. The respondents further submit that the applicant was identified as a subsidiary offender during Divisional Level Inquiry and Circle Level Inquiry and disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 were rightly initiated. The penalty of recovery of Rs.1,80,000/- was imposed on account of her contributory negligence which facilitated continuation of fraud. It is averred that had the applicant followed Rule 48(ii) of POSB Manual and pointed out non-receipt of voucher in time, the fraud could have been detected earlier and further loss prevented. The respondents deny that there was any violation of principles of natural justice, stating that relevant records were shown to the applicant and her reply was duly considered. It is also submitted that certain records such as SB-104 and "will follow register" were not maintained by the applicant, and therefore her defence is not reliable.
14. It is further contended that the applicant cannot take advantage of lapses, if any, on the part of SBCO staff, though action has also been taken against them. The reliance placed by the applicant on Amrita Vs. Union of India & Others (CWP No. 15808 of 2017 decided on 07.03.2019 (Annexure A-14) is stated to be misconceived, as in that case no negligence was proved, whereas in the present case specific negligence is alleged and established. The respondents also raise a preliminary objection regarding non-maintainability of the O.A. It is argued that the Tribunal, in exercise of power of judicial review, cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as an appellate authority and the penalty Digitally signed by MAMTA WADHWA imposed is proportionate to the misconduct.
15. Upon consideration of the pleadings and material placed on record, this Tribunal finds that the core issue for determination is 8- O.A. No. 1240/2019 whether the penalty of recovery imposed upon the applicant on the ground of alleged contributory negligence is sustainable in law.
16. It is not in dispute that the primary fraud was committed by late Shri Nirmal Singh, who admittedly misappropriated a substantial amount and expired on 14.04.2014. The case of the respondents against the applicant rests on the allegation that she failed to detect the non-receipt of closure voucher and thereby facilitated continuation of fraud. However, from the record, it is evident that no direct evidence has been brought on record to conclusively establish that the withdrawal/closure voucher was not received by the applicant or that she failed to forward the same to SBCO. The defence of the applicant that the vouchers were duly received and transmitted has not been effectively rebutted by producing cogent documentary evidence to prove negligence.
17. It is further noticed that crucial records such as SB-104 and "will follow register" were admittedly not available. In such a situation, drawing an adverse inference against the applicant alone, without establishing that such records were exclusively in her custody or were deliberately withheld by her, is not justified. The findings recorded by the disciplinary authority are thus based largely on presumption rather than concrete evidence.
18. Moreover, reliance on material not forming part of the charge Digitally signed by MAMTA WADHWA sheet or not supplied to the applicant would vitiate the proceedings being violative of principles of natural justice. The applicant had specifically sought relevant documents, and non-supply of complete material has caused prejudice to her defence.
9- O.A. No. 1240/2019
19. The Tribunal also finds merit in the contention that the penalty of recovery can be imposed only when there is a clear and direct nexus between the alleged negligence and the loss caused to the Government. In the present case, such nexus has not been conclusively established. The mere possibility that earlier detection could have reduced the loss cannot be a ground to fasten pecuniary liability without any rationality to quantify the quantum of penalty.
20. The issue is no longer res integra. The case of the applicant is squarely covered by Amrita Vs. Union of India & Others (Supra), wherein in similar circumstances it has been held that in the absence of proved negligence, recovery cannot be effected from an employee merely on the basis of alleged contributory negligence. The attempt of the respondents to distinguish the said judgment is not convincing, as in the present case also the charge of negligence remains unsubstantiated by reliable evidence. In Amrita's case (supra), the Hon‟ble High Court set aside the Tribunal‟s penalty order as well as tribunal‟s order dismissing the O.A.
21. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The order dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure A-1) passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 29.10.2018 (Annexure A-2) passed by the appellate Digitally signed authority are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are by MAMTA WADHWA directed to refund the amount, if any, already recovered from the applicant pursuant to the impugned orders, within a period of two 10- O.A. No. 1240/2019 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 27.03.2026
„mw‟
Digitally signed
by MAMTA
WADHWA