Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
M Chaitanya Krishna vs Post Ap Circle on 29 January, 2025
1
OA.No.246/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS NO.020/00246/2022
ORDER RESERVED ON 07.01.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 29.01.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
M.Chaitanya Krishna
S/o. M. Venkateswara Rao
Aged about 33 years
Postal Assistant, Gr. 'C'
Savings Bank Control Organisation (PA SBCO)
Tanuku, H.O.
R/o. 16-50-3, 6th Ward
Old Town, Tanuku
West Godavari District. .....Applicant
(By Advocate Sri K.Ravi)
Vs.
Union of India
1. Department of Posts
Government of India
New Delhi.
Rep. by its Director General.
2. Chief Post Master General
Andhra Circle
Vijayawada - 13.
3. The Post Master General
Vijayawada Region
Vijayawada.
4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Bhimavaram Division
Bhimavaram - 534 201.
5. Post Master
Head Post Office
Tanuku, West Godavari District.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA 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=
PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=
PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.02.03 16:42:01+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
OA.No.246/2022
6. Post Master
Head Post Office
Palakol, West Godavari District. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Sri P.Narayana, Sr.PC for CG)
*****
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA 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=
PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=
PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.02.03 16:42:01+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
3
OA.No.246/2022
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 declare the action of the 4th Respondent in issuing proceedings No.F 4-1/16-17/SO/MChK/ dt.31.03.2022 in recovering an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs from the applicant without conducting any enquiry as wholly illegal arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the applicant is not entitled for any recovery or imposition of any punishment and pass such other further order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:
i. The applicant had got appointed as Postal Assistant (PA,SBCO), Palakol HO, on the 19th Feb., 2014. He was issued with charge memo No.F 4-1/16-17/SO/MchK, dt.22.9.2021, by the 4th Respondent, alleging that, while working as PA SBCO, Head Post Office, Palakol, on 7.7.2015, he had failed to follow the instructions, vide para 11(ii) of the Manual of SB Control Procedure, 1999, Eighth Edition and, thereby, failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty as envisaged in the provisions contained in Rule 3(ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ii. Against the charge memo, the applicant submitted his explanation on 01.10.2021, followed by additional reply, on 05.10.2021, denying the above said charge. However, without looking into the explanation of the applicant and without conducting any enquiry, the 4th Respondent Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.03 16:42:01+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA.No.246/2022 issued major penalty, vide proceedings, dt.31.03.2022, ordering recovery of Rs.5,00,000 from the applicant, to be recovered @ Rs.10,000/- per month, in 50 equal instalments, w.e.f. 31.03.2022. The applicant pleads that the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts have time and again held that imposition of major penalty without enquiry is bad in law.
iii. The allegation in the charge memo pertains to fraud committed by the then Sub Post Master, Jinnuru, Sub Post Office, Sri K.Appa Rao, who had failed to credit amounts to the account of A.Murali Krishna and A Subba Rao, though he had accepted the amounts from the said customers. Thereafter, when the depositors submitted withdrawal voucher for an amount of Rs.1,17,000/-, on 6.7.2015, from the above said account, the said SPM, forwarded the SB withdrawal voucher of Rs.1,17,000/-, with balance after transaction of Rs.7034/-. However, the allegation was that the balance in the said account, as per the Voucher Checking Register, after the above said transaction, was shown to be Nil. The above transaction was reflected in the Sub Post Office List of Transactions (LOT) of Jinnuru, but the Balance after Transaction (BAT), shown in the voucher, was different from the actual balance after transaction, as per the SBCO records. On this basis, it was alleged that the applicant, while working as PA, SBCO, Palakol Head Office, on 7.7.2015, failed to check the difference in BAT in the said voucher and failed to report the irregularity and, thus, failed to discharge his duties properly, and the major penalty of Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.03 16:42:01+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA.No.246/2022 recovery of Rs.5.00 lakh was imposed, without conducting any enquiry.
iv. It is also submitted by the applicant that, when the alleged transaction took place, he had not even joined the department, as stated in his reply statement, dt. 01.10.2021. Further, he was just the second-in- command and there was already an In-charge PA SBCO posted above the applicant. When the Senior PA, SBCO-I, went on leave, from 27.05.2015 to 27.07.2015, no interim arrangement was made in his place. During that time, the applicant only verified whether all the SB vouchers entered in the List of Transactions were received or not, but he had not checked the vouchers, as per para 11(ii) of the Manual of SB Control Procedure, 1999. As per the Memo of Distribution of Work, the work of checking of vouchers of SB Accounts was assigned to the Senior PA, SBCO. He, further, submits that no voucher checking registers were maintained at the SBCO, Palakol. It could not be understood, as to how the Respondents had issued the charge memo, when there were no proper records.
v. Even prior to the issuance of the charge memo, the Supdt. of Post Offices, Eluru Division, had issued a letter, dated12.06.2019, stating that the Sr.Supdt. of Post Offices, Bhimavaram, had attributed fraud to the applicant and sought to recover an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards contributory negligence, on the part of the applicant. To the above letter, the applicant had submitted his representation on 13.07.2019, stating that he had not committed any wrong and that he had only verified whether all the vouchers were received or not from the Sub Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.03 16:42:01+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA.No.246/2022 Post Office at the Post Head Office. He had further submitted that he had put in just 17 months of service as on the date of the alleged incident and, for no fault of his, he had been threatened to deposit the amount, though he had put in his best efforts to manage the SBCO Branch of Palakol, HO. After one year, the 4th Respondent rejected the request of the applicant, vide his letter, dt.22.06.2020, and the applicant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.6,41,396/-, within a week, to which the applicant again submitted his representation on16.07.2020, stating that he had done no wrong and requested to drop further action. Again, the Supdt. of Post Offices, Eluru Division, issued another letter, dt.18.09.2020, directing the applicant to credit the said amount towards part of recovery of the alleged defrauded amount. But the applicant did not pay any amount to the authorities.
vi. According to the applicant, since he resisted the attempts made by the authorities to recover the amount from him, respondents issued the charge memo and the subsequent punishment order. It is submitted that the allegation is only pertaining to non-identification of the difference in the vouchers balance, regarding transaction amounts, to the tune of Rs.7,034/-. It is not understood as to how the amount, which was not identified, would escalate into fraud to the tune of Rs.97.00 lakh. The Respondents initially threatened the applicant to deposit Rs.50,000/-, and, thereafter, directed him to deposit Rs.6,41,396/-. The action of the Respondents for recovery of the amount from the applicant, without conducting any inquiry, is wholly Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.03 16:42:01+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA.No.246/2022 illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. The Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the order, dt.07.02.1967, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in AIR 1967 SC 1269 : 1967 2 SCWR 442 in State of Orissa vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors., regarding fair opportunity. It is stated that -
"12. .......It is true that the order is administrative in character, but even an administrative order which involves civil consequences as already stated must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice after informing the first respondent of the case of the State, the evidence in support thereof and after giving an opportunity to the first respondent of being heard and meeting or explaining the evidence. No such steps were admittedly taken; the High Court was, in our judgment, right in setting aside the order of the State."
4. On notice, Respondents have put in appearance through their Counsel and filed a written reply stating that -
i. Provision for recovery, as per Rule-204 of the Postal Manual, Volume-III, is as follows -
'where owing to the negligence of a departmental employee or its agent including an extra departmental agent, or through the omission on his part to observe any rule as provided in the different volumes of the Postal Manual, or other books like the Post Office Guide, the Department, either by reason of the enquiry being impeded or frustrated, directly or indirectly or for any other reason is put to a loss of Government money or property, or where the department loses money by embezzlement or fraud of any of its employee, etc. any member of the staff or any agent who by his negligence, default or disregard of the rules, has caused the loss or has contributed to its occurrence, either by reason of the enquiry being impeded or frustrated directly or indirectly or for any other reason, may be required to make good the loss either in whole or part as the competent authority may decide provided that there is a clear finding that (i) the departmental employee/ ED Agent is held responsible for a particular act or acts of negligence and / or breach of orders or rules Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.03 16:42:01+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA.No.246/2022 caused the loss or contributed to its occurrence by reason of enquiry being impeded or frustrated directly or indirectly or for any other reason.' Also, vide Rule 204-A(1) of the Postal Manual, Volume-III, it has been stipulated that -
'....personal liability must be strictly enforced against all officers who are dishonest, careless or negligent in the duties entrusted to them.' ii. Further, as per the provisions of Rule-11 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, a Government Servant can be proceeded against for imposing minor penalties, namely, (i) Censure; (ii) Withholding of his promotion;
(iii) Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders;
(iii)(a) reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension, and, (iv) withholding of increments of pay.
iii. Para 108 of the P & T Manual, Volume-III, also lays down that, in addition to the penalty of recovery, technically there is no bar to imposition of any statutory penalty, if the circumstances of the case justify it.
iv. According to the Respondents, fraud was committed by one K.Apparao, the then Sub Post Master (SPM), Jinnuru Sub Office (SO), which came to light in the year 2016. Detailed investigations at Jinnuru SO revealed that huge amount of public money, to the tune of Rs.97,82,226/-, was embezzled by him, during the period from 24.12.2012 to 28.07.2016, by adopting the modus operandi of (i) non accounting of the deposits Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.03 16:42:01+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA.No.246/2022 accepted from the account holders by simply making entry in the passbook without making entries in other office records, and (ii) issuing passbooks with fake account numbers when the customer approached the office for opening a new account and not accounting for the amount in the Post Office accounts.
v. Sri K Apparao, the then SPM, Jinnuru SO, being the main offender in the fraud case, was proceeded against under Rule-14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules,1965, and was awarded the penalty of dismissal from service, vide R4 Memo No.F4-1/16-17/KAR, dated 30.07.2018. Further, besides the departmental disciplinary action, a criminal case was also registered against the main offender with Police Authorities and also with the CBI.
The main offender did not cooperate with the departmental investigation and did not credit a single rupee to the department. Efforts made to identify the properties in the name of the main offender and his family members proved to be in vain. Thus, the loss sustained by the Government/Department in this case could not be recovered from the main offender.
vi. The applicant, who worked as Postal Assistant (PA), Savings Bank Control Organisation (SBCO), at the Palakol Head Post Office, during the period from 19.02.2014 to 20.09.2018, failed to notice the difference in the balance in respect of SB Account No.116393 (2823596364), while checking the SB vouchers of Jinuuru SO, on 07.07.2015, for withdrawal of Rs.1,17,000/-, on 06.07.2015, by Sri A.Muralikrishna and Sri A.Subbarao, at Jinnuru SO.Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA 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= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.03 16:42:01+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA.No.246/2022 vii. In his statement, dt.22.04.2019, the applicant had submitted before the ASPOs, Palakol Sub-division, that the in-charge SBCO was on long leave, from 27.05.2015 to 27.07.2015. He accepted that voucher checking was not carried out as no alternate arrangement was made and that he managed the SBCO branch in the absence of a senior official for a period of 2 months.
viii. The 4th Respondent, being the Disciplinary Authority, decided to initiate disciplinary action against the applicant's lapses/irregularities/failure, and, accordingly, a charge sheet under Rule-16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, was issued, on 22.09.2021, with one article of charge. ix. The applicant submitted representations, dated 01.10.2021 and
05.10.2021, to the Disciplinary Authority (R4), requesting to exonerate him from the charge imposed against him. The Disciplinary Authority/4th Respondent, after considering the representations of the applicant and all other connected records of the case, finalized the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, vide Memo, dated 31.03.2022, and ordered that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- be recovered @ Rs.10,000/- per month, w.e.f. 31.03.2022, in 50 instalments.
x. It is stated by the Respondents that the main offender had committed financial irregularities to the tune of Rs.97,82,226/-. Had the applicant done his duty, as per the rules/guidelines, the fraud could have been detected much earlier. Non-adherence to rules by the applicant facilitated the main offender to misappropriate huge sum of public money which dented the image of the department. The rules prescribe recovery of Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.03 16:42:01+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA.No.246/2022 contribution from the subsidiary offenders, which is neither illegal nor deviation from the statutes.
xi. It is contended that the act on the part of the applicant in not requesting initially for an inquiry and now citing this as an alibi before this Tribunal, is nothing but sheer abuse of the process of law.
xii. Aggrieved with the above punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant has approached this Tribunal in the present OA, wherein interim order, dt.20.04.2022, was passed staying the recovery. It is submitted that though there are provisions for appeal/revision petition, the applicant, without availing the same, had directly approached this Tribunal and filed the present OA.
xiii. It is also submitted that the dictum was already laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in several landmark decisions that the scope of judicial review of departmental enquiry falls in a narrow compass. Respondents have relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court-
a. Parma Nanda vs. State of Haryana and Others (1989 (2) Supreme Court 177): '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 t he 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 compete nt 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.Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA 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= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.03 16:42:01+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA.No.246/2022 b. Civil Appeal No.1709 of 1988 with SLP (Civil) No.6998 of 1988 - Lack of appellate jurisdiction of Tribunals. c. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and Another vs. Ashok Kumar Arora (1997 SC 1030); wherein it was held that High Courts / Tribunals do not exercise the power of Appellate Court / Authority. d. Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K.Chopra (AIR 1999 SC 625: Findings reasonably supported by evidence not to be tested for correctness.
e. In UT of Dadra & Nagar Haveli vs. Gulabhia M.Lad, (2010) 5 SCC, the Apex Court held that -
"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 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".
f. In B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Ors, it was also held as under:
"13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co- extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 781], this Court held at page 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA 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= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.03 16:42:01+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA.No.246/2022 g. In the orders in Director General, RPF vs. Ch.Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, State Bank of India vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow [1994 (1) SLR 516] and State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. S.Sree Rama Rao, similar principles have been reiterated by the Apex Court.
xiv. It is prayed that the OA be dismissed, being devoid of merits.
5. The applicant has filed his rejoinder repeating the submissions already made in the OA and further submits that the Respondents have not answered the point as to how they have arrived at the amount of Rs.6,41,396/- to be recovered from him, when the non-identification of difference in the voucher balance after transaction amount was only to the tune of Rs.7034/-. As he had resisted the proceedings, the Respondents issued the charge memo by making false and baseless allegations and, thereafter, issued proceedings imposing the major penalty of recovery of Rs.5.00 lakh, without conducting any enquiry. When no enquiry was conducted, it is not understood as to how the judgments cited by the Respondents would apply to the present case as there are no findings at all.
Therefore, the recovery order is liable to be set aside. He has also cited the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case between Premsingh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2020(6) ALJ 243 = AIR online ALL 1793, wherein it is held that, without conducting enquiry for determining the guilt of an employee and without giving opportunity of hearing, passing the order for recovery was not proper and the Court had set aside the order of recovery.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRLA 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= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.03 16:42:01+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 OA.No.246/2022
6. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the materials on record, including the table showing recoveries ordered from 23 other employees in the matter.
7. It is noticed that, previously, the department had raised two different demands as follows:
(i) Vide letter, dt.12.06.2019, ordering recovery of amount of Rs.50,000/-, and,
(ii) Vide letters, dt.06.07.2019/18.09.2020, ordering recovery of amount of Rs.6,41,396/-.
8. It is significant that, as stated in the demand letter, dt.06.07.2019, the applicant, vide his representation, dt.19.11.2019, had offered to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-.
Ostensibly, the department had based the demand for recovery on their investigation wherein the statement of the applicant had also been recorded on 22.04.2019 by the ASPO, Palakol Sub Division, in the matter of fraud, to the tune of Rs.97,82,226/-, by K.Apparao, the then SPM, Jinnuru SO. It is clear that two different amounts had been demanded, at different points of time, from the applicant who had admitted his lapse. Even though, the department is empowered to effect recovery, respondents were required to conduct an enquiry under the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. Rule 16(1)(b) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, deals with the "Procedure for imposing minor penalties", specified in Clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11. Any action has to be on the basis of objective criteria which can stand the test of reasoning as well as judicial scrutiny. The applicant protested, vide his reply, dt.26.09.2020, as follows:-
"1. In the letters cited under reference at Sl.No.1 dated 12.06.2019, you have directed me to credit the amount of Rs.50,000/- and in letter at Sl.No.2 & Sl.No.3 you have directed me to credit the amount of Rs.6,41,396/- towards Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.03 16:42:01+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 OA.No.246/2022 part of recovery of fraud amount occurred due to my contributory negligence. This is a false allegation made against me as I had never neglect my duties since my date of joining and I have attended to my duties with utmost devotion and my services were appreciated by my superior officers on many occasions.
x x x x x
3. In this connection it is to submit that, no charges have been made against me regarding this fraud case till now. Without any charges identifying me as sub offender and attribute share amount is not only irregular but also injustice too. (emphasis added)
4. Further as mentioned in your letters 1 & 3 above, I had not received any attachments from the competent authority. Hence, it is requested to supply the all relevant attested documents so as to enable me to know the facts."
9. Only after the above objection by the applicant, he was served the charge memo, dt.22.09.2021, under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, to which he replied through his representations, dt.01.10.2021 and dt.05.10.2021. The Disciplinary Authority/R4, disposed of the two representations, vide his order, in proceedings, dt.31.03.2022, as follows:-
".......Keeping in view of the Directorate instructions communicated under DG instructions under Rule 11 of CCS CCA Rules 1965, as also that of the observations made by the UPSC, which is a constitutional body in a similar case conveyed in UPSC Lr.No.3/288/2020-S.I dated 07.01.2022, I am of the opinion that the official's contribution must be viewed as a contribution to further facilitate the fraud lest this fraud would have been stopped at Rs.14,50,900/-. Accordingly, I pass the following order.
ORDER I, P Balasubrahmanyam, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhimavaram Division and Disciplinary Authority order an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to be recovered at Rs.10,000/- per month w.e.f. 31.03.2022 in 50 instalments. This recovery is ordered to balance the scales."
10. In such cases, this Tribunal has repeatedly held, as in the orders in OA.
No.229 of 2008, G.Maddileti vs. The Superintendent of Post - Nandyal, OA Nos.434, 435 and 436 of 2014, OA No.1086 of 2015, OA No.1501 of 2015 and OA No.007 of 2018, that the penalty of recovery ordered without inquiry was Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.03 16:42:01+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 OA.No.246/2022 bad in law and, while setting aside the impugned orders, gave liberty to the respondents to proceed under Rule 16(1)(b) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The significant portion of order, dt.25.08.2008, passed in OA.No.524 of 2008, is extracted below:
"........the respondents are at liberty to conduct a regular inquiry in respect of the allegations made against the applicant in accordance with Rule 16 (1) (b) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965, as requested by the applicant himself. Appeal, if any, already filed by the applicant against the impugned orders before the appellate authority shall also be remitted to the disciplinary authority to conduct regular inquiry under Rule 16(1)(b) of the CCS(CCA) Rules 1965."
11. In response to order, dt.22.11.2024, of this Tribunal, through the memo, dt.
12.12.2024, details of recovery and amounts credited voluntarily, have been furnished by the Respondents. As per the chart, we find that recovery has started from other employees who are the applicants in the following OAs before this Tribunal:
i. OA.No.28/2021 ii. OA.No.573/2020 iii. OA.No.589/2020 iv. OA.No.888/2020 v. OA.No.497/2023Learned counsel for the Respondents has rebutted the contention of the applicant that recovery was ordered from the applicant without conducting any enquiry. According to him, memo, under Rule-16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, was issued to the applicant on 22.09.2021, to which representation, dt.01.10.2021, followed by additional representation, dt.05.10.2021, was submitted by him.
12. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that, even in the table furnished by the respondents, it is found that there is a variation in the amounts Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.03 16:42:01+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 17 OA.No.246/2022 recovered or deposited. Sri A.Veeranna, at Sl.No.3, was subjected to recovery of Rs.34,100/- only. In certain cases, as at Sl.No.18 (R.Phani Prasad), Sl.No.23 (DAA Kumar) and Sl.No.24 (D.Ramanaiah), the amount to be recovered is yet to be fixed because of pendency of disciplinary action against them. In the case of the applicant, no calculation sheet has been provided. It is also informed that efforts are being made to recover the amount from Sri K.Apparao, who actually caused the loss amounting to almost one crore rupees and was the main accused. Thus, there is no concrete basis for arriving at the amount of Rs.5 lakh for recovery from the applicant.
13. Learned counsel for the Respondents argued that the judgment, directing to afford fair opportunity to the employee, is not applicable in the present case, as due procedure has already been followed. He has cited the observations in the proceedings, dt.31.03.2022, to show the liability of the applicant in the matter because of his contributory lapse. According to him, the OA is premature because the applicant has not exhausted the statutory remedies.
14. Having accepted the charge memo and submitted his explanation, the applicant is found to have rushed to the Tribunal, without exhausting the departmental remedies. The applicant has alleged that no enquiry was held. But, since, the DA has followed the statutory procedure under Rule 16 (1)(b) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, this allegation does not hold water. Further avenues are available to the CO/Applicant to approach the appropriate authority for challenging the orders of the DA. He is free to approach the competent authority in the matter, accordingly. The enquiry held under Rule 16 (1) (b) of Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.03 16:42:01+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 18 OA.No.246/2022 the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, meets the directives in the OAs of the CAT, cited supra. Thus, we find no grounds to interfere with the enquiry.
15. Against the order, dt.31.03.2022, imposing the penalty on him, the applicant is free to submit his appeal, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, which shall be disposed of, as per rules, within the stipulated period. No recovery shall be made from him till the disposal of the appeal through a reasoned and speaking order.
16. The OA is disposed of in the above terms. Interim order, dt.20.04.2022, shall stand vacated in the above terms. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) Administrative Member 29.01.2025 /ps/ Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA 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= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.03 16:42:01+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0