Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri M.Venkanna and learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondents.

2. Petitioner is a Postal Assistant in the Department of Posts, Government of India. While he was working in Nandipet, Sub-Post Office (for short S.O.), he was deputed to Makloor S.O to work as Sub- Post Master (for short, 'SPM'). Having received complaints of illegalities in the Makloor S.O., fact finding enquiry was conducted. Based on the findings in the said enquiry, disciplinary action was initiated against petitioner. He was placed under suspension on 29.6.2019. On 1.9.2019 complaint was also lodged in Makloor Police Station against petitioner alleging that there was shortage of cash of 7,70,535/- in S.O cash balance as on 29.6.2019. The complaint was registered as Crime No.139 of 2019. On 18.9.2019 his suspension was revoked.

25. Though, learned counsel for petitioner asserted that petitioner is seeking deferment of disciplinary proceedings only on Article No.1 till conclusion of criminal proceedings, from the charge memo served on the petitioner, it is noticed that all the charges pertain to his tenure as Sub Post Master in Makloor Sub Post Office. In the second article of charge, it is alleged that petitioner failed to dispose of surplus funds of PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J Makloor sub office by remittance to the head office; failed to mention the actual liabilities and reasons for retaining excess cash balances. In Article no.3, the allegation is about his acts of omissions and commissions stated in Articles-1 and 2 and that he violated the provision of Rule 100 of Postal Manual Volume VI Part III. In Article-4 it is alleged that petitioner maintained excess cash than authorised limits on four days during that period. It also alleges that during that period, petitioner failed to mention whether there were liabilities to retain excess cash and failed to submit reasons for retention of excess cash beyond authorised balance. In Article-5, it is alleged that petitioner failed to maintain sub office account for his period of office. In Article-6 it is alleged that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty on 29.6.2019.

26. From the allegations in Articles-1 to 5 prima facie, it is noticed that they pertain to handling of cash during his tenure as Sub Post Master on deputation. In Article-6 though allegation is unauthorised absence, it is again connected to the whole episode. Statement of imputations elaborates what is alleged in the articles of charges. The evidence relied upon by the disciplinary authority does not specify as to which witness would depose against which article of charge and which document is relied upon to hold a charge. It may be possible that deposition of any or all of the witnesses relied by the disciplinary authority to sustain one or more charges. It is appropriate to note PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J that 8 witnesses common in both proceedings are employees of the Department of Posts and are concerned to Makloor SO. While contending that he is seeking stay of enquiry only on Article-I, learned counsel for petitioner has not explained as to how recording of evidence only on Article-I can be separated. Thus, per-se accepting the contention of petitioner would result in deferring the entire disciplinary proceedings till the conclusion of criminal proceedings.