Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
B Rajesham vs Dept Of Posts on 15 April, 2025
1
OA.No.1047/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS NO.021/01047/2016
ORDER RESERVED ON 07.03.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 15.04.2025
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
B.Rajesham
S/o. Late Sri B.Rajamallu
Aged about 61 years, Occ: PA
Godavarikhani (Removed)
Peddapalli Division
Karimnagar District (T.S.). .....Applicant
(By Advocate Sri B.Gurudas)
Vs.
1. Union of India, represented by
The Chief Postmaster General
Telangana Circle
HYDERABAD - 500 001, (TS).
2. The Director Postal Services
O/o PMG Hyderabad Region
HYDERABAD - 500 001, (TS).
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices
Peddapalli Division
PEDDAPALLI - 505 172, (TS).
4. Sri B.Nanda
Inquiry Officer & ASP
Huzurabad Sub-Division
HUZURABAD, PO
Karimnagar District, (TS). ....Respondents
(By Advocate Sri A.Surender Reddy, Sr.PC for CG)
******
PANDIRLAP Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=
500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST
FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=
ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51074
2c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb5
90082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
SANDHYA
Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 19:57:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
OA.No.1047/2016
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
".... to call for the records pertaining to the punishment Order No.F4-2/12-13, dated 29.12.2014 (A-III) issued on the basis of inquiry report, dated 13.11.2014 (A-II), submitted in pursuance of charge memo No.F4-2/12-13, dtd.29.11.2012(A-I) issued by the 3rd Respondent and confirmed by the 2nd Respondent by Memo No.PMG(H)/ST/21-4/16/BR/PDP/15, dated 12.10.2015 (A-IV) and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the rules and principles of natural justice and in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, set-aside and quash the said disproportionate and illegal penalty of removal from service with consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:
i. The Applicant is challenging the punishment of removal from service awarded by the 3rd Respondent/Supdt. of Post Offices/Disc.Authority (D.A. for short), through memo No.F4-02/12-13, dt.29.12.2014, on the basis of the report, dt.13.11.2014, submitted by the 4th Respondent/Inquiry Officer, after conducting inquiry into the charges framed against him, vide memo No.F4-02/12-13, dt.29.11.2012, and confirmed by the 2nd Respondent/Director of Postal Services/Appellate Authority (A.A. for short), vide memo No.PMG(H)/ST/21-4/16/BR/PDP/15, dt.12.10.2015.
ii. It is submitted that the applicant, while working as officiating BPM/PA, Godavarikhani SO, in Peddapalli Division, had allegedly PANDIRLAP Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51074 2c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb5 90082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SANDHYA Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 19:57:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 OA.No.1047/2016 committed financial irregularities, for which a charge memo, under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, was issued by the 3rd Respondent/D.A. The 4th Respondent/Inquiry Officer, after completing the inquiry, submitted his report, dt.13.11.2014, holding all the charges as proved. According to the applicant, there was no evidence to substantiate the charges. The 3rd Respondent, without considering the submissions made by the applicant, awarded the penalty of removal from service, vide memo No.F4-02/12-13, dt.29.12.2014. Aggrieved by this disproportionate penalty, the applicant preferred an appeal, dt.09.02.2015, to the 2nd Respondent/A.A. who rejected the same and confirmed the penalty awarded by the 3rd Respondent.
iii. It is also submitted that the applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant, w.e.f. 17.12.1979, in the Peddapalli Division of Karimnagar District and had rendered 35 years of unblemished service. He performed his duties to the satisfaction of the public as well as the authorities. He was granted three financial upgradations, under the MACP Scheme, on the basis of his good record. During the relevant period, the applicant was the lone PA working in the Sub-Office, although Godavarikhani is a heavy office with the following running accounts:
- Savings Bank Account - 3000
- R.D.Accounts - 30000
- MIS Accounts - 3000
- KVP Accounts - 10000
PANDIRLAP Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51074 2c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb5 90082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SANDHYA Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 19:57:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA.No.1047/2016 In addition to the Savings Bank work, the PA has to attend to the counter work also. Consequently, the work relating to updation of data and records was pending.
iv. Further, the regular Sub-Post Master was deputed for training for a period of one month (i.e. April/May, 2012) and the applicant was forced by the 3rd Respondent to take charge from him. Accordingly, he took charge from him and worked as SPM cum PA- RDPRSS. He also worked as Officiating SPM, Godavarikhani, whenever the regular SPM went on leave. Against the sanctioned strength of SPM and five PAs, the applicant alone performed the duties of SPM and PAs, to the extent possible.
v. While the applicant was working so hard, the 3rd Respondent, all of a sudden, placed him under suspension, w.e.f. 29.05.2012, and, after six months, i.e. on 29.11.2012, he was issued a charge sheet, under Rule-
14. The charge sheet contained four Articles of Charge, making the following allegations -
Article-I "That Sri B.Rajesham, PA Godavarikhani S.O. under Peddapalli HO, while working as RDPRSS PA and also officiating as SPM, Godavarikhani SO, shown RD half withdrawals in r/o the following RD PRSS accounts on the dates mentioned against each, without the knowledge of the depositors and without making entries in the RD Passbook and RD ledger by forging the signature of the depositors on the application for withdrawal and made entry of half withdrawals in the RD LOT and charged the amount of half withdrawal in to the SO accounts on the following dates mentioned against each account without paying the amount of half withdrawal to the depositors.
PANDIRLAP Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51074 2c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb5 90082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SANDHYA Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 19:57:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA.No.1047/2016 Sl. RD A/c Name of the Date of Amount No. No. depositor withdrawal of withdraw al
1. 2202058 Sri K.Ravinder 30.04.2012 13000/-
2. 2101984 Sri K.Sanjeev 18.05.2012 12000/-
Kumar Article - II "That Sri B.Rajesham, PA Godavarikhani S.O. under Peddapalli HO, while working as RDPRSS PA and also officiating as SPM, Godavarikhani SO, closed the following RD PRSS accounts on the dates mentioned against each, without the knowledge of the depositors by forging the signature of the depositors on the application for withdrawal.
Sl. RD A/c Name of the Date of Amount of
No. No. depositor withdrawal withdrawal
1. 5301430 Sri A.Shanker 18.05.2012 Rs.17057/-
2. 1551107 Sri G.Mallaiah 11.05.2012 Rs.15968/-
3. 1551518 Sri K.Ramesh 21.04.2012 Rs.13110/-
Article - III
"That Sri B.Rajesham, PA Godavarikhani S.O. under Peddapalli HO, while working as RDPRSS PA and also officiating as SPM, Godavarikhani SO on 27.02.2012 shown an amount of Rs.2400/- as half withdrawal without the knowledge of depositor by forging the signature of the depositor on the application for withdrawal in respect of the RD PRSS account No.1651597 of Sri Voliala Satyanarayana and charged in to S.O. accounts on 27.02.2012 which was already closed on maturity on 05.10.2011 for Rs.103446/- by the depositor.
Article - IV "That Sri B.Rajesham, PA Godavarikhani S.O. under Peddapalli HO, while working as RDPRSS PA and also officiating as SPM, Godavarikhani SO during the period from September 2011 to 29.05.2012 irregularly closed the RDPRSS account bearing No.1001536 of M.Satyanarayana Reddy on 24.04.2012 for Rs.17057/- without the knowledge of the depositor even though the same account with No.2101958 was already closed on maturity on 19.03.2012 for Rs.25511/- by the depositor by misusing old pass book bearing No.1001536 and by forging the signature of the depositor on the SB-7 withdrawal voucher.
PANDIRLAP Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51074 2c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb5 90082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SANDHYA Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 19:57:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA.No.1047/2016 Therefore, it was alleged that Sri B.Rajesham, PA (Under Suspension), Godavarikhani SO, had failed to follow the provisions of Rules 113(iii) and 115(2)(1)(a), (e) and (f) of POSB Manual, Volume-I, and had thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, as required by Rule-3(1)(i) & (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
vi. The applicant contends that the IO held the charges as proved under "Preponderance of probability" and the inquiry report is not based on valid evidence but on surmises and conjunctures.
vii. The IO is relying on the applicant's statement EXS-52 & 53 given before SW-10. They cannot be relied upon as they were obtained by threat and coercion. The IO has to rely on what is deposed before the IO and not on material collected in the preliminary inquiry, argues the applicant. Even though a bias petition, dt.29.04.2014, addressed to the 3rd Respondent, was moved against the Inquiry Officer, which was rejected, without any valid reasons, vide memo No.F4-02/12-13, dt.17.09.2014.
viii. It is further submitted that the applicant has credited an amount of Rs.1,14,926/-, under threat and pressure and promise of refund of the amount afterwards. There was, therefore, no loss to the department. It is also submitted that the 3rd Respondent, ignoring the defence of the applicant and abundant evidence against the charges, passed the following order, awarding the penalty of removal from service, through memo No.F4-2/12-13, dt.29.12.2014.
PANDIRLAP Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51074 2c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb5 90082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SANDHYA Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 19:57:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA.No.1047/2016 ORDER "As SPM and RDPRSS PA of the Godavarikhani SO as discussed in the foregoing paras, the charged official has violated of Rule-115(2)(1)(a), (e) and (f) of POSB Manual Volume-I and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required by Rule-3(1)(i) & (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The irregularities committed by the official are serious in nature and calls for stringent action. The action on the part of the official has tarnished the image of the department in the eyes of the public and such officials are not fit to continue in the department. Therefore, I, G.V.Satyanarayana, Supdt. of Post Offices, Peddapalli Division hereby order that Shri B.Rajesham, PA, (under suspension), Godavarikhani SO be removed from service with immediate effect."
ix. The applicant preferred an appeal, dt.09.02.2015, to the 2nd Respondent, who rejected the same, without going into the merits, and upheld the punishment awarded by the Disc.Authority/R3.
3. The grounds raised for relief, by the applicant, include the following:
i. The action of the Respondents in issuing charge memo, awarding disproportionate penalty of removal from service, and confirming the same, is illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
ii. Placing the applicant under suspension, without establishing any prima facie case against him, is arbitrary and against the provisions contained in Rule-17 of the Postal Manual, Volume-III, and the orders of the DoPT.
iii. The preliminary investigation in this case was not done, as required under Rule-3 of the Postal Manual, Volume-III. The applicant was not allowed access to the concerned records before making his statement, which was obtained under threat and inducement. The evidence of the PANDIRLAP Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51074 2c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb5 90082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SANDHYA Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 19:57:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA.No.1047/2016 witnesses was collected behind the back of the applicant. The action of the 3rd Respondent, in initiating disciplinary action, on the basis of the defective, irregular and improper preliminary investigation Report, is arbitrary and against the rules.
iv. The Inquiry Officer was partial and biased from the beginning and denied him reasonable opportunity, by failing to get the originals of the listed documents and allowing photostat copies and conducting the inquiry on the basis of these documents, irregularly, and also disallowing the most important and relevant additional documents and defence witnesses.
v. According to the applicant, the report of the Inquiry Officer suffers from innumerable and incurable infirmities. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report without taking the defence of the applicant into consideration. The inquiry report is biased, defective, partial and is not based on valid evidence. Hence, his report is liable to be rejected. vi. It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer failed to read out the statements of the applicant recorded during the preliminary investigation, under threat and inducement, and did not give him an opportunity to deny their contents in the very first sitting or thereafter, at any point of time, during the inquiry. The IO has, however, illegally relied upon them. Any statement not accepted as correct should not be taken on record. In a similar case, the Madras Bench of this Tribunal in OA.No.844/2007 held that -
"14. ....It is an established principle of law that statements of all, namely, witnesses as well as charged employee made during preliminary investigation cannot be used as evidence unless read out PANDIRLAP Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51074 2c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb5 90082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SANDHYA Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 19:57:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA.No.1047/2016 to them and got admitted during the main inquiry. That is if this is relevant for the statement made by witnesses, it is all the more relevant for statement made by the charged officer also. It is to be borne in mind that the applicant made this statement during preliminary investigation in his capacity as Sub Post Master Jafferkhanpet Post Office. This statement is being used against him in the inquiry wherein he is the charged officer. Hence, it is all the more necessary that the statement should have been read out to him and got admitted by him before using it as evidence. Hence, we hold this point raised by the applicant is quite valid."
vii. The 3rd Respondent, without applying his mind and without making an independent assessment of the evidence, awarded the punishment which is highly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, violating the orders of DG Posts vide Lr.No.6/19/72-Disc.I, dt.29.11.1972, and deserves to be quashed.
viii. It is also submitted that the 2nd Respondent also failed to consider the submissions made by the applicant and mechanically rejected the appeal. Holding the charges as proved, without establishing the forgery, by duly obtaining the opinion of the handwriting expert or report from the forensic lab, is arbitrary. In this case, in all the charges, forgery was alleged, although all the withdrawal forms were signed by the depositors, duly witnessed by the immediate superior group officer. In the absence of expert opinion, the charges cannot be held as proved, as there was no scientific proof against the C.O. ix. Neither the charges are correct nor have they been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Preponderance of probability is not applicable in the case of major penalty of removal from service. It is submitted that, in similar cases, the Apex Court and other Courts have quashed disproportionate penalty. The applicant has relied upon the following judgments:
PANDIRLAP Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51074 2c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb5 90082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SANDHYA Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 19:57:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA.No.1047/2016 a. Supreme Court judgment in the case of Collector Singh Vs. LML Ltd., Kanpur in Civil Appeal No.10125/2014 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) 37619/2012: Supreme Court intervened and modified the penalty.
b. Supreme Court of India judgment in the case of Director General R.P.F. and Ors. Vs. Ch.Sai Babu on 29 January, 2003 - Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 SC 1437, 2003 (51) BLJR 1653:
Held: All relevant facts have to be considered before awarding penalty.
c. Supreme Court of India judgment in the case of S.R.Tewari vs. Union of India & Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos.4715-4716 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.22263-22264 of 2012) Contempt Petition (C) Nos.180-181 of 2013:
Held that the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias."
4. On notice, Respondents have put in appearance through their Counsel and filed a written reply stating that -
i. Sri B.Rajesham, the applicant herein, was appointed as Postal Assistant in the Peddapalli Division on 07.12.1979 (not 17.12.1979, as stated by the applicant) and had worked up to 29.12.2014. While working as Postal Assistant and officiating as Sub Postmaster, Godavari Khani S.O., he committed frauds in '8' Recurring Deposit (RD) accounts, to the tune of Rs.112192/-. Earlier, the Sub Postmaster (SPM), Godavari Khani S.O., had reported, on 21.05.2012, suspected fraud committed by the applicant in '5'RD accounts. The Assistant Superintendent Posts, O/o the Superintendent of Post Offices, PANDIRLAP Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51074 2c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb5 90082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SANDHYA Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 19:57:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA.No.1047/2016 enquired into the case on 22.05.2012 and it was revealed that a sum of Rs.1,12,192/- was misappropriated from the RD Accounts by the applicant and, therefore, he was placed under suspension, from 29.05.2012, and proceeded against under Rule-14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, vide Memo No.F4-02/12-13, dt.29.11.2012.
ii. The applicant was given opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry. The I.O. submitted his report, dt.13.11.2014, and held all the articles as proved. After considering the IO's Report and the representation, dt.05.12.2014, of the applicant, against the IO's Report, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the 3rd Respondent, awarded the punishment of 'Removal from Service'. The applicant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority, but it was rejected by the A.A. iii. It is contended that the submission of the applicant that he has rendered 35 years of unblemished service is not true, as the applicant was proceeded against in departmental proceedings and awarded the following statutory punishments prior to the present case:
a. Censure, vide memo No.L/SB/Minus Balances/9/82, dt.10.12.1984.
b. Censure, vide memo No.L1-GR/MIS/2000, dt.30.08.2000.
c. Reduction of pay by two stages for a period of one year, vide memo No.ECB/Memos/AGT/01-02, dt.30.02.2002.
d. Reduction of pay by two stages for a period of two years, vide memo No.ECB/AGT/02, dt.28.10.2002.
e. Reduction of pay by 5 stages for a period of 3 years, vide memo No.F7-1/02-03, dt.23.11.2006.
The above punishments show that the applicant does not have a clean record in the Department of Posts.
PANDIRLAP Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51074 2c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb5 90082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SANDHYA Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 19:57:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA.No.1047/2016 iv. It is further submitted that the applicant has mentioned that, out of one SPM and five Postal Assistants, only one SPM and one PA worked for several years. But, the prosecution document (Attested copy of the nominal roll of Godavari Khani SO), marked as EXS-54, shows that one SPM and seven to eight Postal Assistants worked there and the applicant is only one of the Postal Assistants who worked during the period in question. Staff was allotted as per the prescribed norms of the department and depending on the work load. As per Ex.-54, the applicant attended work of the Pay Roll Savings Scheme Branch only and had nothing to do with the statistics cited by him as the other work was entrusted to two other Postal Assistants. As a supervisor, he should have entrusted his branch work to some other Postal Assistant and looked after the duties of Sub Postmaster. But, the applicant did not do so, as he had some other plans in his mind. The applicant committed misappropriation without giving the charge of RD PRSS to another Postal Assistant.
v. The Inquiry Officer held all the charges as proved, based on the evidence adduced during the inquiry. The contention of the applicant that the IO had held the charges as proved under 'preponderance of probability' and his report is based on surmises and conjunctures is meant to cover up the factual position. As seen from the records of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer has acted in a judicious manner, as prescribed in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. As per Rule (8) under Director-General P & T Orders on Departmental Proceedings and Prosecution, under Rule-14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the PANDIRLAP Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51074 2c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb5 90082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SANDHYA Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 19:57:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA.No.1047/2016 representation against the Inquiry Officer alleging bias should be made as soon as the Inquiring Authority is appointed, and not after proceedings have commenced and reached an advanced stage. vi. In the Daily Order Sheet No.2, dt.22.08.2013, the IO clearly mentioned that -
'The CO admitted that the state documents presented and inspected by him are genuine documents. The applicant signed on the statements presented in token of having inspected by him during the inquiry'.
The listed documents were marked by the IO, after inspection by the applicant. The daily order sheet was signed by the applicant as well as the defence assistant. The listed documents had been attested by the Sub Postmaster, Godavari Khani SO, who is the author of the documents or by the Supdt. of Post Offices who is custodian of the documents, while submitting the originals to the Police in the criminal case filed against the applicant. Hence, there is no justification in the allegation regarding not supplying the original documents. As per the Daily Order Sheet No.3, dt.03.02.2014, the Inquiry Officer had permitted 18 out of 19 additional documents requested for by the applicant and noted down the remarks for the other one as 'the burden of proof lies on the prosecution side, not on CO. The relevancy quoted is not appropriate. Hence, not permitted.' vii. The applicant had requested for only one defence witness, i.e., the Supdt. of Mines, OCP-III, Ramagundam, who had signed SB-7 in r/o RD a/c 2202058 withdrawal, dt.30.04.2012, for Rs.13000/-. The IO PANDIRLAP Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51074 2c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb5 90082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SANDHYA Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 19:57:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 OA.No.1047/2016 did not permit the defence witness and recorded his remarks in the Daily Order Sheet No.3, dt.03.02.2014, that -
'The name and full address of the proposed defence witness has not been furnished and how defence witness is relevant to the charges and how his evidence will substantiate the C.O.' viii. As the applicant did not prefer himself as a witness on his behalf, his statements recorded earlier could not be read out to him and he himself lost the opportunity, which he now feels was very vital/important. As per the Daily Order Sheet No.03, dt.03.02.2014, the applicant admitted the genuineness of his statements mentioned in the listed documents and as such his contention that the I.O. did not give him opportunity to deny their contents is nothing but an afterthought and an effort somehow to prove that the IO was biased. ix. It is submitted by the Respondents that it is far from truth that the applicant correctly made payment to the account holders which was witnessed by responsible officers of the mining company. The account holders who attended the inquiry (SW-1, SW-2, SW-3, SW-4, SW-5 and SW-6) denied their signatures on the documents in question and clearly deposed that they have not received the amounts on the corresponding dates. And one responsible officer (SW-5) of the mining company, who attended the inquiry, disowned the signatures appearing on the voucher and the other one (SW-9), though admitted the signatures as genuine, deposed that he had signed on the request of the applicant and did not witness the payment of amount under question. All the account holders SW-1, SW-2, SW-3, SW-4, SW-6 and SW-8 identified their genuine signatures and denied the signatures PANDIRLAP Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51074 2c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb5 90082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SANDHYA Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 19:57:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 OA.No.1047/2016 in question. Thus, the charges were held as proved, based on the evidence given by the witnesses and the supporting documentary evidence, and the applicant was awarded the penalty of removal from service for good and sufficient reasons.
x. All the state witnesses SW-1, SW-2, SW-3, SW-4, SW-6 and SW-8 denied that they have signed the withdrawal forms in question and deposed that they did not receive the money that was misappropriated. When all the depositors (except one who had expired) attended the inquiry and denied the signatures on the documents in question and identified their signatures on other documents, the IO could very well judge, with naked eye, the genuineness or otherwise of the same. Moreover, the applicant did not put any questions, during cross examination, to any state witness (depositor), when the signatures on the documents in question were denied and is now coming up with an excuse that the documents were not referred for expert opinion. xi. The statements of witnesses who were examined in the inquiry were read out to them and, on their admission, they were subjected to cross- examination by the applicant. As the applicant did not want to examine himself as a witness to escape cross examination, the observation of the Madras Bench of this Tribunal in OA.No.844/2007, cited by the Applicant, is not applicable in this case, according to the Respondents.
5. Respondents have relied on the following judgments of the Apex Court, according to which, this Tribunal has rather limited powers when it comes to review of disciplinary proceedings and the resultant penalty -
PANDIRLAP Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51074 2c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb5 90082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SANDHYA Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 19:57:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 OA.No.1047/2016 a. Parma Nanda vs. State of Haryana and others 1989 (2) Supreme Court 177;
Held: "......the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is malafide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter."
b. UT of Dadra & Nagar Haveli vs. Gulabhia M.Lad, (2010) 5 SCC;
Held: "8.The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters has come up for consideration before this Court time and again. It is worthwhile to refer to some of these decisions. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others, this Court held:
"18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact- finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof".
c. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Director General, RPF vs. Ch.Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, reiterated that the High Court should ordinarily not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Disciplinary Authority in the matter of imposition of punishment and observed:
PANDIRLAP Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51074 2c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb5 90082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SANDHYA Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 19:57:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 17 OA.No.1047/2016 ".....Normally, the punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority should not be disturbed by the High Court or Tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant factors including nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of and discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment in which the concerned delinquent person works."
d. In the case of State Bank of India vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow [1994(1) SLR 516] also it held that a High Court or Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the relevant authority-
"On the question of punishment, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the punishment awarded is excessive and that lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice. It may be noticed that the imposition of appropriate punishment is within the discretion and judgment of the Disciplinary Authority. It may be open to the Appellate Authority to interfere with it but not to the High Court or to the Administrative Tribunal for the reason that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is similar to the powers of the High Court under Article
226. The power under Article 226 is one of judicial review. It is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made. In other words the power of judicial review is meant 'to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court'."
6. The Respondents prayed that the OA, being devoid of merits, may be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the material on record.
8. This is a matter related to disciplinary proceedings. The scope for judicial scrutiny as per the settled law above is very limited. As it is, there seems to be adequate material for the IO to arrive at his findings. The judgments cited by the Respondents are quite relevant.
PANDIRLAP Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51074 2c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb5 90082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SANDHYA Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 19:57:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 18 OA.No.1047/2016
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2007 AIR SCQ 4136 JT 2007(8) SC 588 (Ramesh Chandra Sharma vs. Punjab National Bank and another), at Para 20, has held thus-
"..........once the employer has lost confidence in the employee and the bonafide loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge for the confidence requires absolute integrity. A necessary implication which must be engrafted on the contract of service is that the servant must undertake to serve his master with good faith and fidelity. In a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed. Granting such an employee the relief of reinstatement would be 'an act of misplaced sympathy which can find no foundation in law or in equity' (Vide AIR 1972 Corporation, Bombay Vs. V.A.Ravellow AIR 1972 SC 1343, The Binny Ltd Vs. Their Workman AIR 1973 SC 1403, Kamal Kishore Lakshman vs. Management of M/s Pan American World Airways Inc. Or others, AIR 1987 SC 229, Francis Kalein and Co Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen AIR 1971 SC 2414, Regional Manager Rajasthan SRTC vs. Sohanlal (2004) 8 SCC 218 and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs. M.Chandra Shekar Reddy and others 2005 AIR SCW 1232." (emphasis added)
10. Moreover, this being a clear case of misappropriation involving a sum of Rs.1,12,192/-, in all, the punishment is not such which falls in the category of "shocking". The law was well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh vs. Krishnan Bihari & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1249, that-
"In a case of such nature - indeed, in cases involving corruption - there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant'
11. In the light of the above discussions, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned orders. The OA is, therefore, dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
15.04.2025
/ps/
PANDIRLAP Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= 500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51074 2c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb5 90082, [email protected], CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SANDHYA Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 19:57:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0