Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Rajveer Singh Chauhan vs D/O Post on 5 March, 2025
O.A./187/2020
(Reserved on 28.02.2025)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Original Application No.187 of 2020
th
Pronounced on this the 05 Day of March, 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Rajveer Singh Chauhan, aged about 55 years, S/o Shri Ram Singh
Chauhan, working as Postal Assistant, Head post office, Bareilly. R/o
Flat No.2, Nirmal Residency, Employee Nagar Chauraha, Near Police
Chowki, Bareilly.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri S.K. Kushwaha
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication
& I.T. Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New
Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow.
3. Director of Postal Services in the office of P.M.G., Bareilly
Region, Bareilly.
4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bareilly Division, Bareilly.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Rajni Kant Rai
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A) Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned charge memo dated 25.06.2018 and punishment order dated 16.01.2019 and impugned appellate order dated 28.04.2020 with all consequential benefits viz. refund the recovered amount with 12 % interest on the same and restore the pay as no reduction Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU Page 1 of 12 KUMARI O.A./187/2020 of pay was even been passed with its arrears with 12% interest etc.
ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court finds deem fit and proper.
iii) Cost in favour of the applicant."
2. The facts of this case are that the applicant was recruited under the respondents against the ex-serviceman quota and joined as Postal Assistant on 24.10.2006 against direct recruitment vacancies. While working as Sub Post Master at Sub-office Bareilly, he was served with the impugned minor penalty charge memo dated 25.06.2018 vide which it has been alleged that while working as Sub Post Master, Madhinath Road Bareilly, the applicant did not note any error-book or mention any comment on the S.O. slip received on dated 04.12.2017 received from Head Post Office Bareilly in which 'zero' amounting Govt. Cheque were mentioned nor this fact was brought to the notice of the higher authority due to which Yudhisthir Kumar Sharma, the then Deputy Post Master succeeded to get the government cheque debited in his favour. It has mentioned in the charge sheet that on 04.12.2017, a Government Cheque No.922570 amounting to Rs.'0' Zero was mentioned in the S.O. Slip of Sub-Office Madhinath Road sent by Head Post Office, but physically no cheque was received at Sub office. If this fact would have been brought to the notice of the higher authority or noted in the error note-book, then embezzlement of the said amount could have been avoided. Thus, it has been alleged that due to such an irregular act, he caused a loss of Rs.9,48,469/-. Hence, the applicant failed to maintain absolute integrity, lack of devotion towards duty. The applicant submitted an application dated 01.09.2018 and then a representation dated 11.01.2019 asking for relevant documents to be able to submit his defence reply. Then the disciplinary authority passed the impugned punishment order dated 16.01.2019 which the applicant states has been passed without giving opportunity to Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU Page 2 of 12 KUMARI O.A./187/2020 him to file his defence reply. The disciplinary authority had imposed the punishment of recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- in 15 equal installments from the pay of the applicant as well as reduction of pay by one stage from Rs.39200/- to Rs.38100/- for 1 year without cumulative effect. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an appeal dated 25.02.2019 before respondent no.3. The appellate authority passed the impugned order dated 28.04.2020 rejecting the appeal of the applicant.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has not been granted the opportunity to file his defence reply and the punishment order is too harsh as well as unwarranted. He states that due to mention of zero amount cheque there was no effect on the balance of the sub-office. There was no rule regarding information to be made to the higher authorities. Mere mentioning of the zero amount cheque in the sub-office and physical non-availability of the same would not be the reason for embezzlement. It has been mentioned by the applicant in the appeal that while working at Madhinath as Sub Postmaster, a cheque no.904863 dated 15.03.2017 was mentioned in the S.O. Slip dated 26.12.2018 which was checked by the then Sub Divisional Inspector of Posts (West), Bareilly and in para 4 of inspection report it was observed that transaction between the Head office and sub-office were attested and found correct meaning thereby that the issuance of zero amounting cheque was very much in the notice of the higher officials. Further, the applicant has appealed that the violation of Rule 18(3) of Post Office Manual Volume-VI, Part-III has not been related to the allegation as such charge sheet was itself not maintainable. The applicant has further stated that in the case of the applicant, a full fledged inquiry should have been conducted but respondent no.4 has deliberately adopted the short-cut method and on the basis of his own whims, imposed the double punishment illegally without any supporting documentary evidence. Moreover, when the Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU Page 3 of 12 KUMARI O.A./187/2020 respondents have themselves identified the person who has embezzled the Government money, then how the applicant could be held responsible for the alleged charges. He also contends that while passing the said punishment order, the authority did not follow rule 106, 107 of Postal Manual Vol.III. He next argues that the charge sheet served upon the applicant did not mention anything about the extent of the loss incurred due to the alleged negligence of the applicant. It also did not contain the details regarding what was his share in the total loss incurred by the department caused on the account of the applicant's negligence. Thus, he argues that the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary, non-est and violative of the principles of natural justice.
5. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that Shri Yudhishthir Kumar Sharma, Dy. Postmaster-I, Bareilly Head Office, misappropriated government money by issuing 47 irregular cheques to the tune of Rs.2,73,25,774/- at Bareilly HO with his own signature in his own name and in the name of his family member and other persons known to him without any liability. During investigation of the above case it was noticed that cheque no.922570 was shown as remittance with '0' (zero) amount to Madinath Road Sub Post Office through S.O. slip dated 04.12.2017 but actually not remitted. On the other side Shri Yudhishthir Kumar Sharma issued the said cheque no.922570 on 01.12.2017 with Rs.948469/- in the name of Poonam Yadav. Shri Rajveer Singh Chauhan, the applicant, was working as Sub Postmaster Madinath Road on 04.12.2017 & 05.12.2017 and he received the SO slip dated 04.12.2017 on 05.12.2017. The applicant did not challenge about non-receipt of cheque no.922570 entered in S.O. Slip dated 04.12.2017 of Madinath Road S.O. The applicant also failed to report the error regarding non-receipt of cheque no.922570 which was to be done as per rule 18(3) of Postal Manual Volume- VI (Part III) 6th Edition and also failed to bring this irregularity to the notice of higher officers. It is stated in Rule 18(3) of Post Office Manual Volume-VI, Part-III that "The S.P.M. will be personally responsible that the directions given to Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU Page 4 of 12 KUMARI O.A./187/2020 him in the S.O. slip are correctly and punctually carried out; and if a remittance, which he is told to expect, is not received in due time, he should report the matter to the head office and the Superintendent. Every case, in which there is any delay on the part of a sub-office in sending a remittance ordered by the head office or in acknowledging a remittance received by it, will be reported by the head office to the Superintendent, who will take severe notice of the irregularity." Above negligence of the applicant who failed to report the said irregularity was misused and it led to the misappropriation. If the irregularity of non receipt of cheque no.922570 was reported by SPM on time promptly, the payment of his cheque might be stopped and the fraudulent work of Shri Yudhishthir Kumar Sharma would have come into the light. In this way, the department sustained a loss of Rs.948469/- due to contribution/ negligence and inaction of the applicant.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents states that for the aforesaid reason, the applicant was served with the charge sheet dated 25.06.2018 under rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and was given the opportunity to submit his defence representation. The applicant submitted an application dated 01.09.2018 requesting to provide copy of certain documents. The applicant was informed to examine the available documents vide letter dated 15.10.2018. The applicant made the examination and thereafter, he submitted another application dated 22.12.2018 requesting to show him certain other documents. He was advised vide letter dated 09.01.2019 to submit his defence representation because some documents were not available. These documents were also not relevant to the charges. The applicant instead of submitting his defence representation submitted an application to provide him remaining three documents out of the ten documents requested vide his application dated 01.09.2018. Ultimately, the case was decided and punishment of recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- from pay of the applicant in 15 equal installments @ Rs.10,000/- per month and reduction of pay be one stage from Rs.39200/- to Rs.38100/- for a period of one year without cumulative effect was awarded Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU Page 5 of 12 KUMARI O.A./187/2020 vide memo dated 16.01.2019. The applicant's appeal was also rightly rejected.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has reiterated his arguments in his rejoinder. He has further relied upon the following case laws in support of his argument:
(i) Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India [GLHEL 1996 0 19924, LAWS (SC) 1996 10 28].
(ii) Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ- A No.-1415 of 2015 Union of India and Anr vs. Bishwambher Singh Gaur decided on 18.04.2016.
(iii) Judgement of this Tribunal in O.A./395/2018 decided on 24.02.2025 (Gopal Prasad Goyal vs. UOI & ors.)
(iv) Judgement of this Tribunal in O.A./1537/2014 decided on 11.11.2020 (Rama Shankar Yadav vs. UOI & ors).
(v) Judgement of this Tribunal in O.A./39/2015 (Ram Palat Ram vs UOI & Ors) decided on 10.05.2022.
(vi) Judgement of this Tribunal in O.A./290/2015 (Ram Ashray vs. UOI & Ors) decided on 24.08.2023.
(vii) Judgement of this Tribunal in O.A./1545/2017 (Munna Lal vs. UOI & ors) along with a connected matter decided on 10.08.2023.
(viii) Judgement of the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A./232/2022 (Dinesh Bachubhai Waghela vs. UOI & ors) along with other connected matters decided on 31.01.2025.
8. We have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on several case laws in support of his arguments:-
Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU Page 6 of 12 KUMARI O.A./187/2020
(a) In the case of O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with." Having made the aforesaid observation, the matter was remanded back to the High Court to consider whether an opportunity was given to the appellant to put forward his cse and whether in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, an enquiry was called for and if called for, was it held according to law and the principles of natural justice, and to dispose of the matter according to law.
(b) In the case of Union of India and Anr vs. Bishwambher Singh Gaur (supra), Hon'ble High Court has observed that "The procedure involved for imposition of minor penalty is contemplated under Rule 16. The Rule 16 (1) (b) indicated that no order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 shall be made except after holding an enquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such enquiry is necessary. It necessarily follows that a disciplinary authority is required to pass an order holding that such an enquiry is essential unless it is dispensed with."
(c) Judgement of the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A./232/2022 (Dinesh Bachubhai Waghela vs. UOI & ors) along with other connected matters decided on 31.01.2025 has also been relied upon by the applicant. However, the facts of that case are not the same as the facts of the present case. The charges on the applicant in the said case was that he had failed to stop on Shri Atul P. Bhatt, a Small Savings Agent (SSA) in Bhayavadar Sub Post Office on certain dates who had taken blank passbook from Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU Page 7 of 12 KUMARI O.A./187/2020 the stock of Bhayavadar Sub Post Office and to facilitate the said Small Savings Agent to commit a fraud by allowing him to use the Round MO Stamp of Bhayavadar Sub Post Office. The applicant in the said case denied the charges in his detailed representation stating that he is not authorized to allow or permit anyone to enter in the Post Office and as such the permission for entering in the office is to be taken from the SPM. Thus, the decision of the Disciplinary Authority to dispense with the regular departmental inquiry was declared to be arbitrary. In the present case, the applicant has been charged for negligence of doing what was his own duty and also the applicant has not submitted any representation denying the charges levelled against him in spite of the opportunity provided to him. The applicant has submitted that he has not been given three documents which the respondents claim were not available with them nor has their relevance been proved by the applicant therefore opportunity was given to the applicant to file his defence reply on the basis of available documents.
(d) In the judgements relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant as mentioned in para 7 (iii) to (vii), this Tribunal has quashed the recovery orders issued in violation of para 106 and 107 of Postal Manual Vol.III and it has been held that penalty of recovery cannot be imposed unless it is established that the Government servant was responsible for a particular act or acts of negligence or breach of orders or rules and that such negligence or breach caused the loss. Para 106 and 107 of Postal Manual Vol.III is as under:
"Imposition of the penalty of recovery 106. In the case of proceeding relating to recovery of pecuniary losses caused to the Government by negligence, or breach of orders of a Government servant, the penalty of recovery can be imposed only when it is established that the Government servant was responsible for a particular act or acts of negligence or breach of orders or rules and that negligence or breach caused the loss.
107. In a case of loss caused to the Government, the competent disciplinary authority should correctly assess in a Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU Page 8 of 12 KUMARI O.A./187/2020 realistic manner the contributory negligence on the part of an officer and while determining any omission or lapses on the part of an officer, the bearing of such lapses on the loss considered and the extenuating circumstances in which the duties were performed by the officer shall be given due weight."
10. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority upon the applicant come under the purview of minor penalties as per CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 i.e. 11 (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; 11 (iii a) reduction to 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. Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, provides for the procedure of imposing minor penalties which is as under:
16. Procedure for imposing minor penalties (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (5) of rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (iv) of rule 11 shall be made except after-
(a) informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal;
(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (24) of rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary;
(c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration;
(d) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary. The Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the advice of the Commission to the Government servant, who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission on the advice of the Commission, to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days; and
(e) recording a finding on each imputation or misconduct or misbehavior.
(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule, to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU Page 9 of 12 KUMARI O.A./187/2020 (3) to (24) of Rule 14, before making any order imposing on the Government servant any such penalty.
(2) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include-
(i) a copy of the intimation to the Government servant of the proposal to take action against him;
(ii) a copy of the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him;
(iii) his representation, if any;
(iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry;
(v) the advice of the Commission, if any;
(vi) representation, if any, of the Government servant on the advice of the Commission;
(vii) the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehavior; and
(viii) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor.
11. The facts of this case as discussed above unequivocally reveal that the procedure laid down for imposing a minor penalty in CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 have been followed by the respondents. The applicant has been given the due opportunity to make his representation and three of the documents (the relevance of which has not been sufficiently established) demanded by the applicant have not been provided due to their non-availability. The applicant ought to have made his representation within the given time limit even if it was to the effect of denying the charges and only then could an inquiry be envisaged or dispensed with in accordance with rules. In absence of any representation from the applicant, the disciplinary authority has decided the case and imposed the minor punishments upon the applicant in which there is no violation of the rules governing the matter.
12. So far as the recovery being in violation of Para 106 and 107 of Postal Manual Vol.III is concerned, there would be a violation only if penalty of recovery has been imposed without establishing that the Government servant was responsible for a particular act or acts of negligence or breach of orders or rules and that such negligence or breach caused the loss. In the present case, the applicant has been held guilty of failing to report the error Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU Page 10 of 12 KUMARI O.A./187/2020 regarding non-receipt of cheque no.922570 which was to be done as per rule 18(3) of Postal Manual Volume- VI (Part III) 6th Edition, thus, failing to bring this irregularity to the notice of higher officers. Above negligence of the applicant was misused and it led to the said misappropriation. If the irregularity of non receipt of cheque no.922570 was reported by SPM on time promptly, the payment of his cheque might be stopped and the fraudulent work of Shri Yudhishthir Kumar Sharma would have come into the light. The applicant states that due to mention of zero amount cheque there was no effect on the balance of the sub-office; there was no rule regarding information to be made to the higher authorities; mere mentioning of the zero amount cheque in the sub-office and physical non-availability of the same would not be the reason for embezzlement and it has been mentioned by the applicant that while working at Madhinath as Sub Postmaster, a cheque no.904863 dated 15.03.2017 was mentioned in the S.O. Slip dated 26.12.2018 which was checked by the then Sub Divisional Inspector of Posts (West), Bareilly and in para 4 of inspection report it was observed that transaction between the Head office and sub-office were attested and found correct meaning thereby that the issuance of zero amounting cheque was very much in the notice of the higher officials. This averment on the part of the applicant is not acceptable since he cannot assume that certain irregularities were in knowledge of the higher authorities without providing them specific intimation to that effect. The same has not been done by the applicant and we find no error in the action of the respondents of setting the responsibility of the lapse occurred upon the applicant and holding him responsible for causing financial loss to the department since the applicant has admittedly not mentioned the said zero amount cheque in the appropriate way. Thus, in the present case there is no violation of Para 106 and 107 of Postal Manual Vol.III as it is established that the Government servant was responsible for a particular act or acts of negligence or breach of orders or rules and that such negligence or breach caused the loss.
Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU Page 11 of 12 KUMARI O.A./187/2020
13. In light of the above facts and discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the case laws cited by the applicant do not come to his rescue, there is no legal or procedural flaw in the orders impugned in this O.A. and as such the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, the O.A. stands dismissed. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) ( Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Madhu
Digitally
MADHU signed by
KUMARI MADHU Page 12 of 12
KUMARI