Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Sita Ram Prasad vs Postal on 5 February, 2026
1
O.A. No. 050/00793/2017
/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
O.A. No. 050/00793
793/2017
Reserved on:- 13.01.2026
Pronounced on ::- 05.02.2026
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, MEMBER [J]
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER [A]
Sita Ram Prasad, Son of Late Multan Prasad Kharwar. Resident of Village and
Post Office-
Office Hatta, Police Station- Chainpur, District
District- Kaimur, PIN-821106.
Patna
Bench ..........Applicant
Versus
POOJA Digitally
by POOJA
signed
KUMARI KUMARI 1. The Union of India through the Secretary
Secretary-cum- Director General,
Department of Posts, Government of India, DakBhawan SansadMarg,
New Delhi-110001.
Delhi
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Meghdoot Bhawan, Patna--
800001.
3. The Director Postal Services, Central Region, Bihar Circle, Meghdoot
Bhawan, Patna-800001.
Patna
4. The Director of Account (Postal) Bihar, Patna
Patna-800001.
5. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Rohtas Division, Sasaram
Sasaram-PIN--
821115.
6. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Dalmianagar
Dalmianagar-PIN-821305.
........Respondents
For Applicant:-
Applicant: Mr. Om Prakash Singh
Singh, Advocate
For Respondents:-
Respondents: Mr. Kumar Sachin
Sachin, ld. ASC
2
O.A. No. 050/00793/2017
/2017
ORDER
Per: Mr. Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Memer (A)
1. The instant Original Application has been filed by ld. Counsel for the applicant for the following relief:
i. Too set aside and quash the SPOs Sasaram memo No.F3-1/15-16/Chainpur 16/Chainpur SO dated 17.03.2017. ii. To set aside and quash the o/o CPMG Bihar Patna Memo No. Staff/RP Staff/RP-06/Appeal/S.R. 06/Appeal/S.R. Pd./2017 dated 3/2018 issued by Director Postal Services (Central Region) egion) Bihar Patna by which appeal of the applicant was rejected on the sole ground of time barred.(introduced (introduced through an amendment to the Patna relief clause) Bench iii. Too direct the respondents to pay the salary of the applicant from the date of dismissal from service to POOJA Digitally by POOJA signed 31.03.2017 and other retiral benefits which are not KUMARI KUMARI paid due to order of dismissal from service.
iv. Any other relief or reliefs including the cost of the proceeding may be allowed in favour of the Applicant.
2. The brief facts of the case, case as per the applicant applicant, are that this his application is being filed by applicant to set aside the penalty of dismissal of service imposed on applicant.
applicant. This order has been issued by SPOs Sasaram on 17.03.2017 (Annexure-A/6).
(Annexure A/6). The applicant was charged sheeted oon n 04.01.2017 (Annexure-A/1) (Annexure A/1) for the charge of excess withdrawal of Rs.100 and Rs.400 from MGNREGA Accounts and this amount was credited by Panchayat Rojgar Sewak, Gram Panchayat Shewak in Chainpur SO on 29.07.2015 (Annexure-A/7).
(Annexure A/7). The applicant made appeal against this penalty of dismissal from service to D.P.S. Central Region Patna on 17.05.2017 (Annexure-A/8) (Annexure A/8) and nothing is heard till date. Hence, this O.A. 3 O.A. No. 050/00793/2017 /2017
3. Ld. counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has worked as Postal Assistant in Rohtas Postal Division. He worked as Sub Postmaster Chainpur SO from 02.11.2013 to 08.09.2015 08.09.2015.
4. He further submitted that one memorandum of charges was issued by SPOs Sasaram against the applicant under memo No. F3-1/15-- 16/Chainpur SO dated 04.01.2017. A copy of m memorandum emorandum of charges issued under nder SPOs Sasaram memo No. F3 F3-1/15-16/Chainpur S.O. dated 04.01.2017 against the applicant is being annexed herewith and marked as Patna Bench Annexure--A/1 to this O.A. POOJA Digitally by POOJA
5. From signed rom perusal of above mentioned memorandum of charges charges, it is evident KUMARI KUMARI that it is alleged against the applicant that applicant has made excess withdrawal of Rupees 100/-
100/ (one hundred only) in Account No. 400386904 and of Rs. 400/- (Rupees Four hundred only) in account of 40386906 both accounts standing at Chain Chainpur pur S.O. The date of credit and withdrawal is 26.09.2014 and 22.10.2014 respectively in both the accounts. The he above mentioned transactions were made in MGNREGA Accounts.
6. He also submitted that the SPOs. Sasaram appointed Shri Shantosh Kumar Tiwary ASPOs, Dalmianagar as Inquiry Officer under Memo No.F3-1/15 1/15-16/Chainpur 16/Chainpur dated 21.02.2017. (A copy of Memo No.F3-- 1/15-16/Chainpur /Chainpur SO dated 21.02.2017 is annexed and marked as Annexure--A/2 to this application) and Sri Rajeev Kumar as Inspector Posts, Bikramganj kramganj as Presenting Officer uunder memo No. F3-1/15-- 16/Chainpur dated 21.02.2017. (A A copy of abo above ve mentioned memo 4 O.A. No. 050/00793/2017 /2017 No.F3-1/15 1/15-16/Chainpur /Chainpur SO dated 21.02.2017 is being annexed and marked as Annexure-A/3 Annexure A/3 to this application application).
7. The said I.O. fixed date of enquiry on 07.03.2017 under Memo No.ASP.DLM/Disc /Sita Ram Prasad/ No.ASP.DLM/Disc-01/Sita Prasad/2016-17 dated 20.02.2017. (A A copy of above memorandum of dated 22.02.2017 is being annexed and marked as Annexure-A/4 Annexure A/4 to this application application).
8. He also submitted that the applicant plicant attended enquiry on 07.03.2017 and in course of inquiry, Inquiry Officer misguided the applicant and told that Patna Bench if you would not accept the charges, this enquiry would not be completed POOJA Digitally signed till 31.03.2017 and this proceeding would be continued in Rule 9 of CCS by POOJA KUMARI KUMARI (Pension) Rules, 1972 and your all retiral benefits would not be paid due to pendency of proceeding as there is charge of Excess withdrawal of Rs.500/- against you. Inquiry Officer assured the applicant that he would arrange the compulsory retirement nt from service by SPO SPOs Sasaram. On his false assurance the applicant accepted the charges leveled against him on dated 07.03.2017 and made signature of daily order sheet of Inquiry of dated 07.03.2017 and Inquiry Officer closed the enquiry on the same date. (A A copy of order sheet of dated 07.03.2017 07.03.2017 of Inquiry uunder nder Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 held against the applicant is being annexed and marked as Annexure-A/5 Annexure A/5 to this application application).
9. He also submitted that the Inquiry Officer subm submitted his enquiry report to SPOs Sasaram and SPOs Sasaram never forwarded copy of Inquiry report to the applicant for his comment and straightway dismissed the applicant from service vide memo No.F3-1/15-16/Chainpur No.F3 16/Chainpur SO dated 17.03.2017. 5
O.A. No. 050/00793/2017 /2017 (A A copy of SPOs Sasaram memo No.F3 No.F3-1/15-16/Chainpur 16/Chainpur SO dated 17.03.2017 is being annexed and marked as Annexure Annexure-A/6 A/6 to this application application).
10. Applicant has further stated that the so called amount of Rs.100/ Rs.100/- and 400/- which are alleged to be withdrawn as excess in MGRNEGA Account No.400386904 No.400386904 and 400386906 respectively standing in Chainpur SO, which are mentioned in memorandum of charges Annexure Annexure-A/1 A/1 was credited by Panchayat Rojgar Sewak, Gram Panchayat Sewak, Gram Patna Bench Panchayat Jakariya vide Chainpur SO UCR No.A No.A-74 and A-75 75 on POOJA Digitally signed 29.07.2015 and and memorandum of charges was issued on dated 04.01.2017 04.01.2017..
by POOJA KUMARI KUMARI (A A copy of daily account sheet of Chainpur SO dated 29.07.2015 on U.C.R. is being annexed and marked as Annexure Annexure-A/7 to this application)..
11. Thereafter, the applicant made appeal to the Director Postal Services (Central Region) Bihar Patna against this order of dismissal from service (Annexure A/6) on 17.05.2017 and submitted one copy of this appeal to (Annexure-A/6) SPOs Sasaram for submission of para-wise para wise comment on this appeal to the Director postal Services (Central Region) Bihar Circle, Patna. (A A copy of appeal dated 17.05.2017 preferred to Director Postal Services, Central Region, Bihar Patna is being annexed and marked as Annexure Annexure-A/8 A/8 to this application However, any decision of Appellate Authority on appeal application).
dated 17.05.2017 made by applicant is not received till today.
12. The he order of dismissal from service was issued on 17.03.2017 and due date of retirement of applicant was dated 31.03.2017. (A A copy of SPOs 6 O.A. No. 050/00793/2017 /2017 Sasaram Memo No.C1-Pension/Monthly No.C1 Pension/Monthly SH/07 SH/07-08 dated ated 26.04.2016 is also annexed and marked as Anenxure-A-9 Anenxure 9 to this O.A. O.A.)
13. Ld. d. Counsel for the applicant has taken the following ground in the O.A. in support of his contention:
i. For that the applicant was alleged for excess withdrawal of Rs.100 and Rs.400 on 22.10.2014 (Annexure (Annexure-A/1) and it was credited on 29.07.2015 and memorandum of charges was issued on 04.01.2017 and enquiry was completed on 07.03.2017 and Patna applicant was dismissed from service on 17.03.2017. It is proved Bench beyond doubt that respondents hav have worked in haste and pre--
POOJA Digitally by POOJA signed KUMARI KUMARI determined agenda.
ii. For that the Procedure of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was violated by Inquiry Officer as he misguided the applicant to accept the charges with false assurance that he would arrange his compulsory retirement from service by SPO SPOs,, Sasaram and he would got all retiral benefits. He directed the P.O. to submit his brief but brief of P.O. was not served to charged official when the charges leveled against charged official were accepted stating that there was no need of brief of P.O. Thus Thus, Inquiry Officer violated sub Rule 10 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. iii. For that Disciplinary authority never served the copy of Inquiry report to charged official and violated Sub Sub-Rule Rule 2 of Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
iv. For or that the penalty of dismissal from service of applicant for excess withdrawal of Rs.500/00 only, which was credited later on, 7 O.A. No. 050/00793/2017 /2017 is shockingly disproportionate and excessive excessively harsh punishment just 14 days before retirement. This case deserves interference of this Tribunal.
14. Mr. Kumar Sachin,, ld. ASC, who appeared on behalf of respondents, has filed the reply in which it was stated that the fraudulent excess withdrawal under the MNREGA Scheme at Chainpur SO came to light in 2015, involving a total loss of ₹42,53,197/ out of which only ₹12,27,619/ ₹42,53,197/-, ₹12,27,619/- has been recovered Patna and ₹30,25,578/- still remains outstanding, causing substantial loss Bench to Government money. Chainpur SO being a single single-handed handed office, POOJA Digitally by POOJA signed KUMARI KUMARI Sri Sita Ram Prasad, the then SPM, was the principal offende offenderr and solely responsible for the fraud committed through multiple deliberate irregular methods, including fraudulent ledger entries, prefixed withdrawals, fake warrants of payment, and back back-dated dated deposits followed by withdrawals.
15. Ld. counsel for the respondents submitted that a memorandum of charges was duly issued on 04.01.2017, and the charged official was given full opportunity to submit his defence. In his written statement dated 17.01.2017, he admitted entrusting MNREGA ledger work to an outsider and permittin permitting g withdrawals without mandatory cross-verification verification with wage lists, thereby acknowledging gross negligence and misconduct. As he neither clearly admitted nor denied the charges, a regular departmental inquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was cconducted. 8
O.A. No. 050/00793/2017 /2017
16. During the inquiry held on 07.03.2017, the applicant accepted the charges, stating that he did not wish to contest the matter further. Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on the same date. Since the charged official had admitted the charges during inquiry, there was no requirement to furnish the inquiry report to him for further representation as per the rules rules.
17. He further submitted that after after due consideration of the inquiry report and the gravity of misconduct involving serious financial Patna Bench fraud and loss to the Government, the Disciplinary Authority POOJA Digitally by POOJA signed dismissed the applicant from service vide order dated 17.03.2017. KUMARI KUMARI The averments made in the OA are baseless and denied. It is therefore, prayed that the instant original applic application may be dismissed dismissed.
18. Ld. counsel for the applicant has filed the rejoinder in which it was stated that the memorandum of charges issued by respondent against applicant on 04.01.2017 (Annexure (Annexure-A/1 A/1 page 10 of the O.A.) is only for alleged excess withdrawal of Rs. 100 100/- and 400/--
but in the written statement of the respondents it has been mentioned about fraudulent fraudulent excess payment of Rs. 42,53,197/ 53,197/ (Rs.
Forty two lakh fifty three three thousand one hundred ninety seven only) that is not part of charge sheet. The applicant cannot be penalized for the charges which are not part of charge memorandum. It is fact that applicant accepted the charges in course of inquiry before Inquiry Officer, Officer, but only this will not justify highest penalty of 9 O.A. No. 050/00793/2017 /2017 dismissal from service only for alleged excess withdrawal of Rs.100/ and Rs.400/- and that also stands credited on 29.07.2015 Rs.100/-
(Ann (Annexure-A/7 A/7 page 20 of the O.A.). This penalty dated 17.03.2017 (Annexure A/6 page 17 of the O.A.) is shocking (Annexure-A/6 shockingly disproportionate to charges as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Ishwar Chandra Jayasawal V/S Union of India and others in Civil Appeal No.48-49 No.48 49 of 2014 decided on 03.01.2014 reported in 2014 (2) SLJ (SC) 152.
Patna Bench 19. It was further stated that as per Rule 15 (2) of CCS (CC (CCA) A) Rules, POOJA Digitally by POOJA signed 1965 it is mandatory on on the part of disciplinary authority to supply KUMARI KUMARI copy of Inquiry report to the charged official. Moreover Moreover, if any procedure is prescribed in the rules, it is to be followed in particular manner, it cannot be deviated from that and any violation of such procedure would vitiate any action particularly in disciplinary proceeding held by Hon'ble Patna High Court iin n L.P.A. No.226 of 2018 dated 10.05.2018 in case of Jay Prakash Singh V/S State of Bihar reported in 2019 (3) PLJR 108. Supply of copy of enquiry report to charged official is mandatory after decision of Md. Ramzan Khan by Apex Court Court reported in (1991) 1 S SCC 588.
20. Heard learned counsels counsel for both the parties and perused the material that is available on record and considered the matter in its entirety entirety.
21. After hearing both the parties and upon careful consideration of the pleadings, documents, arguments placed on record record,, citations relied 10 O.A. No. 050/00793/2017 /2017 upon by the counsels, counsels, as well as a thorough examination of the issues that arose in the Original Application, we have arrived at the following conclusion:
conclus i. The applicant namely, Shri Sita Ram Prasad, worked as Postal Assistant in Rohtas Postal Division. He worked as Sub Postmaster Chainpur S.O. from 02.11.2013 to 08.09.2015 08.09.2015.The The applicant was charged for alleged excess withdrawal of Rs.
100/- (Rupees One Hundred Only) and Rs. 400/ 400/- (Rupees Patna Bench Four Hundred Only) on 22.10.2014 (Annexure A A-1)
1) and it POOJA Digitally by POOJA signed KUMARI KUMARI was credited on dated 29.07.2015 therby admitting that there was a fraudulent withdrawal. A memorandum of charge was issued to the applicant on 04.01.2017 and enquir enquiryy was completed on 07.03.2017.. Subsequently, the applicant was dismissed from service on 17.03.2017. ii. The applicant admitted the excess withdrawal from two MGNREGA Account of Rs. 100/ 100/- and Rs. 400/- and he also deposited that amount and hope hoped that he should d be forgiven.
However, the respondents in their reply have taken the stand that the applicant admitted entrusting MNREGA ledger work to an outsider and permitting withdrawals without mandatory cross-verification verification with wage lists reflecting thereby an acknowledgement of gross negligence and misconduct misconduct.
11O.A. No. 050/00793/2017 /2017 iii. It is not the volume of amount of money but it is the intention of small withdrawal from poor persons' accounts who were wage earners of MGNREGA. Subsequent deposit does not mitigate the charges. It is a case of go gobbling bbling up of money from poor MGNREGA workers.
iv. There has been no violation of the rules and procedure in either conducting the departmental proceedings or passing the appellate order. There here has been no violation of the princi principle ple Patna Bench of natural justice. In fact, the plea of the applicant that he POOJA Digitally by POOJA signed accepted thee charge on the false promise m made ade by the inquiry KUMARI KUMARI officer that he will impress upon the disciplinary authority to pass an order of compulsory retirement thereby making the applicant ant eligible for pension and thus got duped is not being supported by any documentary evidence. v. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that misappropriation of even a small amount warrants strict punishment, including dismissal:
a. Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) v. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha,(2000) (2000) 7 SCC 517 "Once misappropriation is proved, the fact that the amount is small or that it has been repaid is irrelevant."
b. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti,(2001) (2001) 2 SCC 574 12 O.A. No. 050/00793/2017 /2017 "Integrity of a public servant cannot be compromised on the ground of smallness of the amount." c. Disciplinary Authority--cum-Regional Regional Manager v.
Nikunja Bihari Patnaik,(1996) (1996) 9 SCC 69 "Acting beyond authority aand nd failure to maintain absolute integrity constitutes misconduct, irrespective of financial loss."
vi. It is well settled in the aforesaid law that the quantum of money misappropriated is immaterial; what is relevant is the Patna Bench intention and breach of trust, especially when the delinquent POOJA Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI KUMARI employee holds a position of trust.The present case involves gobbling up money from accounts of poor MGNREGA workers, who depend on daily wages for subsistence. This is not a mere procedural lapse but a deliberate abuse of official position. Subsequent deposit of the amount does not mitigate the charges.
vii. Hence, there is no reason for this tribunal to interfere w with ith the order of the respondent officials. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed.
viii. No costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Justice Narendra Kumar Johari)
Member (A) Member (J)
pk/-