Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Santosh Kumar vs Post Hp Circle on 23 July, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
CIRCUIT SITTING AT SHIMLA
O.A. No.1365/2022
Reserved on: 23.07.2025
Pronounced on: 18.08.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
Santosh Kumar son of Sh. Hajari Prashad Singh, age 23 years,
presently working as Postal Assistant (under suspension), Resident of
Village Brow Post Office Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla-172001.
Group 'C'.
...Applicant
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Rishav Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Information and
Technology, Department of Posts, New Delhi.
2. Director, Postal Services, H.P. Circle, SDA Complex, Kasumpati,
Shimla, H.P.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Rampur Postal Division, Rampur
Bushahr-172001.
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Naresh Kumar Sharma)
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana
Satyanar Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, OU=CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone=
ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4
a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77,
PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN,
SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09
Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59,
CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this
document
i Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 14:13:52+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
2
ORDER
Per: HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A):
1. This O.A has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(b) Annexure A-1 dated 23.09.2022, Annexure A-5 dated 31.05.2022, Annexure A-6 dated 26.08.2022 and Annexure A-7 dated 28.11.2022 be quashed and set aside.
(c) It be declared that the applicant is entitled to increased Subsistence Allowance after 90 days and the same be paid to him from due date."
2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
I. The applicant joined as Postal Assistant with respondent no.3 on 01.03.2020. The applicant while working as Sub Postmaster, Nither Post Office, an FIR No.33 of 2022 was registered at P.S. Nirmand, District Kullu on 01.06.2022, under Sections 420, 408, 409, 418, 467, 468, 471 and 120-
B of the IPC. The FIR was registered in addition against one Gautam Kumar son of Dhananjay Singh, resident of Village Uchila, Post Office Ramdhira, Rohtas, Bihar-821312, who was posted as Gramin Dak Sewak, Nither SPO under respondent No.3. The allegation in the FIR was that 81 ATN Kits were issued at Nither SPO under Rampur Postal Division irregularly by using the Finade ID of Sh. Santosh Kumar (Applicant) SPM Nither SPO against SB accounts of deceased depositors and for those SB accounts depositors who had not applied for the same, resulted him fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.30,32,600/- on different dates between the period 2021 and 2022. II. After registration of the FIR, the applicant was arrested and thereafter was released on bail. There is nothing to be recovered from the applicant, he is not likely to tamper any evidence as there is no witness except the complainant and the Investigating Officer in the FIR and no Charge-Sheet Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF ayana whatsoever has been issued to the applicant.
INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 14:13:52+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 3 III. Vide order dated 31.05.2022, the applicant was placed under suspension on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against him under Rule 10(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by respondent no.3 being the Disciplinary Authority. While placing the applicant under suspension, he has been sanctioned Subsistence Allowance of 50% under FR-53(1) of Fundamental Rules (Annexure A5). The suspension period of the applicant was reviewed by the Review Committee and the same was extended by recording that the gravity of the misconduct committed and the circumstances under which the official was placed under suspension, the amount of Subsistence Allowance was not increased (Annexure A/6). IV. It is further submitted by the applicant that vide order dated 28.11.2022, the suspension period of the applicant has again been extended for three months w.e.f. 28.11.2022 onwards (Annexure A/7).
Since the applicant belongs to Bihar and he is to support his family and newly born child who are residing in Bihar, the applicant submitted a request dated 05.09.2022 and 20.09.2022 to the respondent No.3 for enhancing the Subsistence Allowance and also for reinstatement as the delay is not attributed to him. However, the same has been rejected vide impugned order Annexure A-1 recording that the Subsistence Allowance being paid at present at this stage was found to be quite sufficient. Aggrieved by letter Annexure A-1 dated 23.09.2022 rejecting the request of the applicant for increase in Subsistence Allowance and reinstatement, the applicant submitted a representation to the next Higher Authority i.e. respondent No.2 explaining the delay in initiating the proceedings and non-commencement of proceedings in the criminal case, the delay is not attributed to him. The applicant has also submitted that he is cooperating with the authority to bring out the truth and also to the effect that suspension cannot be prolonged indefinitely as this is already 180 days Digitally signed by Satyanarayana SatyanarVanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 now.
a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 14:13:52+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 4 V. Since order of suspension is appealable and right to increase the Subsistence Allowance is available under the CCS (CCA), Rules, 1965, it is incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority to see the plight of the employee who is to discharge his social obligations and employee becomes answerable not to his family only but in the society and power to put an employee under suspension is required to be used by the Disciplinary Authority sparingly. No doubt suspension is not a punishment but continuous suspension without any justification as no Charge-Sheet has been issued in the present case for the last more than six months, the applicant is perform duties as being deprived of his right to there is nothing to be recovered nor he is likely tamper the evidence as there are only witnesses, one is complainant and the other is to two Investigating Officer. Thus, the whole purpose of continuing applicant under suspension indefinitely is without any nexus of the object sought to be achieved. In the present case neither any Charge-Sheet has been issued for the last 6 months and no proceedings have been further investigated in the alleged FIR, the whole purpose for keeping the applicant under suspension when he is neither likely to tamper any evidence nor any recovery is to be made, continued suspension and denial of increase Subsistence Allowance after three months is wholly unjustified. He had made reference Rule 10 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, provides as under:-
"10.1 Except in case in which an employee is deemed to have been placed under suspension an order of suspension can normally take effect only from the date on which it is made or subsequently and not retrospectively. The Government servant who placed under suspension should be simultaneously communicated of the order. A is retrospective order will be both meaningless and improper."
and Rule 6 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, provides as under:-
"1. While public interest is to be the guiding factor in deciding to place a Government servant under suspension, the competent authority should take all factors into account and exercise his discretion with due care while taking such action even when the matter is under Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Satyanar Vanapalli investigation and before a prima facie case is established. The DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 following circumstances may be considered appropriate to place a a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, government servant under suspension:-
CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 14:13:52+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 5
(i) Where his continuance in office will prejudice investigation, trial or any enquiry (e.g. apprehended tampering with witnesses or documents);
............(ii) Where his continuance in office is likely to seriously subvert discipline in the office in which he is working;
(iii) Where his continuance in office will be against the wider public interest, e.g, if there is a public scandal and it is considered necessary to place the Government servant under suspension to demonstrate the policy of the Government to deal with officers involved in such scandals, particularly corruption: Where a preliminary enquiry revealed a prima facie case justifying criminal or departmental proceedings, which are likely to lead to his conviction and/or dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service..............."
".........In case of types (iii), (iv) and (v), discretion should be exercised with care as suspension may cause lasting damage to the Government servant's reputation even if he is exonerated or is ultimately found guilty of only a minor misconduct, the discretion vested in the competent authority in this regard should be exercised with care and caution after taking all factors into account..........."
"3. While placing an official under suspension the competent authority should consider whether the purpose cannot be served by transferring the official from his post to a post where he may not repeat the misconduct or to influence the investigations, if any, in progress. If the official would like to have leave that might be due to him and if the competent authority thinks that such a step would not be inappropriate, there should be no objection to leave being granted instead of suspending him."
It was pleaded that being aggrieved by letter dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure A/1), the applicant has preferred a representation to the next higher authority but without any response. Since the applicant is facing financial crises as he is resident of Bihar and posted in H.P. Circle, Rampur Bushahr, he is to maintain two families which is very difficult to live from hand to mouth within the meager amount of 50% Subsistence Allowance.
3. Notice was issued to the respondents. The respondents filed written statement on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3 on 10.07.2023 wherein following has been submitted:
I. It is averred by the respondents that 81 ATM Kits were irregularly issued against SB accounts of deceased depositors and for those SB accounts Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 depositors who had not applied for the ATMs at Nither Sub Post Office with a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 14:13:52+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 6 the Finacle ID of the Applicant (the then Sub-Postmaster Nither SO, Now Postal Assistant, Rampur Bsr HO under suspension) which resulted in fraudulent withdrawals to the tune of Rs. 30,32,600/-(Rupees Thirty Lac Thirty Two Thousand Six Hundred only) from these SB accounts through ATMs. Further, an amount of Rs. 84,500/- (Rupees Eighty Four Thousand Five Hundred only) was found to have been withdrawn from the SB accounts through SB-7 withdrawal form of deceased account holders after the date of their death. Thus, as per preliminary enquiry, a total amount of Rs. 31,17,100/- (Rupees Thirty One Lac Seventeen Thousand One Hundred only) was fraudulently withdrawn. The use of Finacle ID of the Applicant clearly establishes his direct involvement in the fraud committed at Nither SO. The Applicant was the custodian of the ATM cards which were fraudulently issued and thereafter used for fraudulent withdrawals from the accounts of the depositors.
II. The applicant (the then SPM. Nither, now PA, Rampur Bsr HO under suspension) was holding the charge of Sub-Postmaster, Nither SO and as per departmental rules and instructions issued from time to time, the concerned Sub-Postmaster has the overall responsibility for the physical security of each and every item available in his office. The 81 ATM kits were issued irregularly with the Finacle user ID of the Applicant at Nither SO which were in his custody. Therefore, keeping in view the gravity of lapses on the part of the Applicant, he was placed under suspension by Respondent No. 3. vide Memo No. F-4/Nither SO/2022(III) 31-05-2022 (Annexure A-5). As per Fundamental Rule 53 (1), a Government Servant under suspension is entitled up to the first three months of the period of suspension to subsistence allowance at an amount equal to the leave salary which he would have drawn if he had been on leave on half average pay or on half pay. A copy of the extract of Fundamental Rules is being annexed herewith Digitally signed by Satyanarayana SatyanarVanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 as Annexure R-1 for the ready reference of this Tribunal. Accordingly, as per a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 14:13:52+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 7 the above Rule, the applicant was granted subsistence allowance by Respondent No.3 vide Memo No. F-4/Nither SO/2022(111) 31-05-2022 (Annexure A-5).
III. In the FIR, fraud case was lodged against the applicant and one Sh. Gautam Kumar, Dak Sevak, Nither Sub-Post Office by Respondent No.3 at Police Station Nirmand, which was registered as F.I.R. No. 33 dated 01-06- 2022 (Annexure A-4). 100% past work verification of Nither Sub-Post Office has not yet completed and is still going on, therefore, Charge Sheet has not yet been issued to the applicant. As such, the 90 days suspension period of the applicant was going to complete on 29-08-2022 and as per rule, the same was required to be extended for a further period of 90 days. Accordingly, a meeting of the Review Committee, constituted for the purpose, was held on 25.08.2022 to review the suspension of the applicant. The Review Committee, keeping in view the gravity of the case, misconduct involved and circumstances under which the applicant has been placed under suspension, recommended extension of suspension of the applicant for a further period of 90 days w.e.f. 30-08-2022. Accordingly, on recommendations of the Review Committee, the suspension the period of the applicant was extended for a further period of 90 days w.e.f. 30-08-2022 by Respondent No. 3, vide Memo No. F-4/Nither SO/2022 (III) dated 26-08- 2022 (Annexure A-6).
IV. Further, it is submitted by the respondents that the applicant submitted applications dated 05.09.2022 and 20.09.2022 to respondent No.3 for increasing the subsistence allowance. The case of the applicant for increasing the subsistence allowance was reviewed by respondent No.3 and observed that the subsistence allowance being paid to the Applicant was found quite sufficient. Thus, the applications dated 05.09.2022 and 20.09.2022 of the applicant were disposed of by respondent No. 3 vide letter Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 No. F-4/ Nither SO/ 2022(III) dated 23-09-2022 (Annexure A- 1). 100% a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 14:13:52+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 8 past work verification of Nither Sub-Post Office has not as yet been completed and is still going on. 100% past work verification is a time consuming process; and in the interest of the department, this work is required to be carried out with due care. Hence, the period of suspension of the Applicant was required to be extended. Therefore, the Review Committee, keeping in view the gravity of the case, misconduct involved and circumstances, placed the applicant under suspension, and recommended extension of suspension of the applicant for a period of 90 days w.e.f. 28.11.2022 to 25.02.2023 and further from 26.02.2023 to 26.05.2023.
Further, his suspension was reviewed w.e.f 27.05.2023 to 25.08.2023 for further a period of 90 days. Accordingly, on the recommendations of the Review Committee, the suspension period of the Applicant was extended for the period of 90 days i.e. 28.11.2022 to 25.02.2023 and further a period of 90 days w.e.f. 26.02.2023 to 26.05.2023 by respondent No. 3, vide Memo No. F-4/ Nither SO/ 2022 (III) dated 28-11-2022 (Annexure A-5) and Memo No. F-4/ Nither SO/ 2022 (III) 21-02-2023, respectively. A copy of the Memo No. F-4/ Nither SO/ 2022 (III) dated 21.02.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure R-2.
V. The subsistence allowance being paid to the applicant was also reviewed by respondent No. 3 and found that the subsistence allowance being paid is quite sufficient; hence, there was no need to vary the quantum of subsistence allowance. The applicant was also informed in this regard by respondent No.3 vide Memo dated 28.11.2022 (Annexure A-5) and Memo 21.02.2023 respectively (Annexure R-2). Thus, the period of suspension has been prolonged due to the reasons directly attributable to the applicant. Hence, there does not arise any question to increase the quantum of subsistence allowance being paid to the applicant. Digitally signed by Satyanarayana SatyanarVanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 14:13:52+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 9
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder wherein the applicant reiterated the contents of the O.A and emphasized on following submissions:
I. No charge sheet or charges have been framed/issued either by the disciplinary authority or by the trial court against the alleged allegations framed against applicant. per rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 an order suspension shall be reviewed by the competent authority on recommendations of review committee after expiry of 90 days. The Review Committee made review regarding revocation/continuation of suspension keeping in view the facts of the circumstances of the case and also taking in to account of unduly long suspension while putting the employee concerned to undue hardship. In the present case vide Annexure A-5 the applicant was put under suspension for period of 90 days under Rule 10 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 w.e.f. 01.06.2022 to 29.08.2022. The respondents while rejecting the claim of the applicant for increasing subsistence allowance have not considered the undue hardship faced by the applicant and have rejected the claim of the applicant by passing the non-speaking order. II. Since till date no charge sheet has been issued to the applicant after lapse of more than 1 ½ years. He pleaded that the same is against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Prem Nath Bali Versus Registrar, High Court of Delhi' reported as 2015 (16) SCC 415 where in it has been held that every employer must take sincere endeavor to conclude the departmental enquiry within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings as far as possible and the same should be concluded within a period of six months. Where it is not possible for an employer to conclude the departmental enquiry within a period of six months due to unavoidable circumstances than efforts should be made to conclude the same within a reasonable period.
III. Further, it is submitted by the applicant that the amount of subsistence Digitally signed by Satyanarayana SatyanarVanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 allowance may be increased by a suitable amount not exceeding 50% of the a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 14:13:52+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 10 subsistence allowance only for the first three months and LE the period of suspension has been prolonged for the reasons are to be recorded in writing, not directly attributable to the Govt Servant. Thus Annexure A-1 has been passed in violation of the said rules since both the disciplinary proceeding and are the criminal proceedings not been delayed because of the applicant hence the applicant cannot be denied increase of further 50% subsistence allowance as per said rules nor the respondents have any authority to extend the suspension period of the applicant beyond 90 days without sufficient reason as has been held in the case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary Vs UOI and Ors reported as 2015 (7) SCC 291. IV. The recommendations of the Review Committee since 100% passed work verification has not been completed and is still going on which is time consuming process and keeping in view the gravity of the case, misconduct involved and circumstances and the recommendation of extension of suspension of the applicant is totally baseless and against the rules and law. Since it is admitted fact that no charge sheet nor charges have been framed in the criminal proceedings against the applicant the undue prolonged suspension is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
5. Heard both the counsels and have read the averments and pleadings made in the present OA by both sides.
6. The main challenge is to an order dated 28.11.2022 (Annexure A/7) vide which the extension in the suspension period has been done and it has also been recorded as there is no need to vary the quantum of subsistence allowance granted earlier vide this office memo of even number dated 31.05.2022 and the following FR 53 (1) (i) (ii) (a) (i) reads as follows:-
"F.R. 53. (1) A Government servant under suspension or deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the appointing authority shall be entitled to the following payments, namely:-
Satyanar Vanapalli "..........(ii) in the case of any other Government servant- Digitally signed by Satyanarayana DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4
(a) a subsistence allowance at an amount equal to the leave salary a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, which the Government servant would have drawn, if he had been on CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 14:13:52+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 11 leave on half average pay or on half-pay and in addition, dearness allowance, if admissible on the basis of such leave salary:
Provided that where the period of suspension exceeds three months, the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order of suspension shall be competent to vary the amount of subsistence allowance for any period subsequent to the period of the first three months as follows:-
(i) the amount of subsistence allowance may be increased by a suitable amount, not exceeding 50 percent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of the first three months, if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons to be recorded in writing, not directly attributable to the Government servant;"
Whereby subsistence allowance could be fixed at the maximum of 50% of the pay.
7. In view of the aforesaid rule position, the Review Committee keeping in view the gravity of offence committed and pending FIR as well as ongoing investigation has passed the impugned order at Annexure A/2. The allegation of alleged withdrawal of amount by issuing 81 ATM kits and further withdrawal of amount of Rs.84,500/- found from the SB accounts through SB-7 are serious offences. Further as per preliminary enquiry, it is alleged that a total amount of Rs.31,17,100/- was fraudulently withdrawn. The Tribunal is in agreement that 100% the verification of records is a time taking process and is needed for arriving at the correct conclusion. Further, as per the procedure his case and application has been reviewed by the reviewing committee at the regular intervals and no procedural lapse attributed in extending the allowance during suspension period. The applicant is already getting the stipulated Subsistence Allowance.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the OA filed in this case is devoid of any merits and hence the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A)
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Member (J)
Satyanar
Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, OU=CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone=
ayana6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall/sv/ 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 14:13:52+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0