Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. Under fundamental Rule 66(31) of the Post & Telegraph Financial Handbook Volume II, there has been strict liability to impose upon the Senior Postmaster on the point of fixing the signature on the certificate. During the course of criminal proceedings, the alleged Head Office Cash Book could be summoned by the Trial Court on the threat of issuing such search warrant only and it has come to light that Senior Postmaster had affixed his signature on the alleged verification/certificate/Postmaster Balance Sheet and non supply of the alleged documents during the course of enquiry amounted denial of reasonable opportunity of defence to the applicant.

17. Apart from this, Postmaster Order Book dated 20.9.1994and 21.9.1994 these documents could very well show as to whether there was any entry made by the Senior Postmaster regarding taking over of the charge of Treasury by Sri Ram Dular on 29.9.1994 or not. It is also indicated by the applicant that this document was also available but not supplied to the applicant intentionally because in fact there was no entry made on 20.9.1994 regarding taking over charge of the Treasury by Sri Ram Dular.

19. The applicant also demanded the copy of the FIR dated 21.9.1994. The learned counsel for the applicant once again vehemently argued and indicated that while passing the impugned punishment order, the disciplinary authority has ignored the pleadings made by the applicant regarding non supply of material document which were very much relevant for holding the applicant guilty.

20. The applicant also submitted in his reply to the show cause notice that the closing balance dated 20.9.1994 and the opening balance of the next date i.e. 21.9.1994and the figured as mentioned was duly verified by the Senior Postmaster in the Head Office Cash Book dated 20.9.1994 by making the signature on the verification certificate/Postmaster balance sheet and when the same amount was opening balance of the next date, as such, there was no shortage of cash which could be attributed to the applicant. In reply to the show cause notice so submitted by the applicant, it is specifically pleaded regarding the fact that after sudden pain in his chest in the evening of 20.9.94 , and thereafter being hospitalised, the Senior Postmaster became the single custodian of the entire cash and treasury .

26. The applicant has also taken a specific plea that it was absolutely wrong to say that the applicant was discharged from the hospital in the morning on 21.9.1994, but the correct fact is that he was relieved on written demand made by Sri Ram Prasad Tripathi, the Senior Postmaster and this fact was also ignored by the appellate authority while passing the appellate order.

27. The applicant has also taken a specific plea that the Senior Postmaster Sri Ram Prasad Tripathi was the joint custodian of the cash with the applicant and therefore, any disciplinary action needed to be initiated against both the applicant as well as Sri Ram Prasad Tripathi under Rule 18 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. This facts was raised by the applicant but the appellate authority not admitted the same without any justified reason.