Pramod Kumar Tiwari vs D/o Post

(R ESERVED ON – 30.07.2026)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD

rd
Pronounced on this the 3 day of September, 2026.

Original Application No.490 of 2018.

Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)
Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member (A)

Pramod Kumar Tiwari, aged about 55 years, son of Late Shiv Kumar
Tiwari, resident of 80/50D, Shantipuram, Phaphamau, District-
Allahabad.
----- Applicants
By Advocate:Shri Dharmendra Tiwari

VERSUS

1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Post and Telegram,
Govt. Of India, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow.
3. The Director, Postal Services, Lucknow.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Faizabad Division,
Faizabad.
----Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Suraj Singh
O R D E R

By Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member (A):-

Heard Shri Dharmendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant
and Shri Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Original Application is filed under section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-
8. (i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated
03.05.2017 and 26.02.2018 (Annexure A-1 and A-2) of
the OA passed by the disciplinary and appellate
authority.
Page 1 of 7

VIVEK
RAWAT

(ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate
the applicant in service forthwith on the post of
GDSBPM along with consequential benefits and pay
him months to months regular salary.
(iii) To issue any other writ order or direction in favour of
the humble applicant as deem fit and proper by this
Hon’ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
(iv) To award the cost of this application in favour of the
applicant.

3. The Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that the
applicant, while working as GDSBPM, was charge-sheeted vide
memorandum dated 22.07.2005 on three charges relating to alleged
embezzlement/misappropriation of Money Order amounts. After
enquiry, Charges Nos. 1 and 3 were found not proved, while Charge
No. 2 was held proved, and the disciplinary authority, disagreeing with
the findings of the Enquiry Officer without issuing any dissent note,
passed an order dated 23.08.2007 removing the applicant from
service. The applicant preferred a departmental appeal dated
25.10.2007, which was rejected by a non-speaking order dated
28.05.2008. Earlier, the applicant had also filed O.A. No. 247 of 2008
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, which, by
order dated 21.07.2008, directed the appellate authority to decide the
appeal by a reasoned and speaking order; however, the appeal was
again rejected by order dated 16.10.2008. Thereafter, the applicant
filed O.A. No. 112 of 2010, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on
22.04.2014. Aggrieved, the applicant filed Writ Petition No. 1723 (SB)
of 2015 before the Hon’ble High Court at Lucknow, which, by judgment
dated 21.12.2016, quashed the order dated 22.04.2014 as well as the
punishment orders dated 23.08.2007, 28.05.2008 and
16.10.2008/2015, and directed reinstatement of the applicant with
Page 2 of 7

VIVEK
RAWAT

liberty to the respondents to conduct the departmental proceedings
afresh from the stage of furnishing the enquiry report. In compliance
thereof, the applicant was reinstated and the disciplinary authority
issued a dissent note dated 13.04.2017. The applicant submitted a
detailed reply thereto, requesting a fresh enquiry and supply of relevant
documents, but the disciplinary authority, without following the
prescribed procedure and without affording proper opportunity of
hearing, passed the order dated 03.05.2017 removing him from
engagement. The applicant preferred an appeal dated 09.06.2017,
which was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated
26.02.2018. The applicant has challenged the aforesaid orders on the
grounds, inter alia, that the departmental enquiry was conducted in
violation of the principles of natural justice, relevant documents and
proper opportunity of defence were not provided, the disciplinary
authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer without
issuing a proper dissent note, and the punishment imposed was harsh
and disproportionate. Hence this Original application.
4. On the other hand, the Respondents have filed counter affidavit,
wherein it is stated the applicant was appointed as Gramin Dak Sewak
Branch Post Master (GDS BPM), Kannawa Branch Post Office, Chaure
Bazar, on 20.01.1993. During his service, a complaint dated
07.10.2003 was received from Smt. Koyla Devi regarding non-payment
of Money Order No. 2958 dated 24.06.2003 for Rs.1,500/-, and upon
inquiry by the SDI (East), Faizabad, it was found that the applicant had
misappropriated the amount by forging the payee’s signature; similar
irregularities were also found in respect of Money Order No. A8357
dated 04.11.2003 for Rs.800/- payable to Shri Ram Pyare and Money
Page 3 of 7

VIVEK
RAWAT

Order No. 4182 dated 13.09.2003 for Rs.3,000/- payable to Shri Jai
Prakash. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings under Rule 10 of the
GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 were initiated and a
charge-sheet was served upon the applicant on 22.07.2005. On denial
of the charges, Shri S.A. Ansari, retired SSPOs, was appointed as
Inquiry Officer on 28.07.2006, and the applicant did not raise any
objection to his appointment or to the conduct of the enquiry. After
completion of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report
holding the charges proved, which was supplied to the applicant, who
submitted his representation on 02.07.2007. After considering the
enquiry report, the applicant’s representation and the gravity of the
misconduct, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated
23.08.2007 removing the applicant from service. The applicant
preferred an appeal, which was rejected on 28.05.2008. Thereafter, he
filed O.A. No.247 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Lucknow Bench, which was disposed of on 21.07.2008 with a direction
to the appellate authority to reconsider the matter and pass a reasoned
and speaking order. The applicant submitted a fresh representation on
26.07.2008, which was reconsidered and rejected by order dated
16.10.2008. The applicant then filed O.A. No.112 of 2010, which was
dismissed by the Tribunal on 22.04.2014. Aggrieved, he filed Writ
Petition No.1723 (S/B) of 2015 before the Hon’ble High Court,
Lucknow Bench, which was allowed by judgment dated 21.12.2016;
the Tribunal’s order dated 22.04.2014 and the punishment and
appellate orders dated 23.08.2007, 28.05.2008 and 16.10.2008 were
quashed, and the respondents were granted liberty to conduct the
departmental proceedings afresh from the stage of furnishing the
enquiry report to the disciplinary authority. Pursuant to the said
Page 4 of 7

VIVEK
RAWAT

judgment and legal opinion dated 06.01.2017, and upon the applicant’s
representation dated 31.01.2017, he was taken back as GDS and
posted as GDS BPM, Benipur Chandauli, Chaure Bazar, Faizabad,
vide order dated 28.02.2017 and joined on 02.03.2017; however, the
said order was cancelled on 17.03.2017 pursuant to directions of the
Vigilance Office dated 16.03.2017. Thereafter, on the basis of further
legal opinion dated 23.03.2017, the departmental proceedings were
resumed from the stage directed by the Hon’ble High Court, and a
Memo of Disagreement dated 13.04.2017 was served upon the
applicant, to which he submitted his representation dated 28.04.2017.
After considering his representation and the material on record, the
disciplinary authority passed the order dated 03.05.2017 removing the
applicant from engagement, without disqualification for future
employment, which was received by him on 04.05.2017. The applicant
preferred an appeal dated 09.06.2017, which was considered and
rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 26.02.2018,
communicated to him on 03.03.2018. The respondents maintain that
the entire disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with
the applicable rules and principles of natural justice, that the applicant
was afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself, and that the
misconduct involving misappropriation of public money was serious
and established on the basis of the enquiry; therefore, considering the
nature of the duties of a GDS BPM and the requirement of integrity and
loss of confidence, the punishment imposed was justified. The
respondents accordingly contend that the impugned orders dated
03.05.2017 and 26.02.2018 are lawful and valid and that the present
Original Application, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
Page 5 of 7

VIVEK
RAWAT

5. We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties and
have also gone through the detailed pleadings.
6. The applicant who was a Gramin Dak Sewak Branch Post
Master (GDS BPM), Kannawa Branch Post Office, Chaure Bazar, was
chargesheeted for misappropriating the amount of Money orders by
forging the payee’s signature in three cases. The Inquiry Report
concluded that while one charge was proved, the other two charges
were not proved as the complainants gave conflicting statements and
therefore charges were not proved giving the benefit of doubt. The
disciplinary authority after going through the chargesheet, the Inquiry
Report, the representation of the charged officer on the Inquiry report
gave his dissent note on the charges which were not proved by giving
the benefit of doubt and gave the punishment of ‘Removal from
engagement’.
7. There is no procedural discrepancy in the handling of the
chargesheet. Proper dissent note on the charges not proved by the
Inquiry officer have been given by the disciplinary authority with
reasons and thereafter the disciplinary authority has taken the final
decision. The charges on the Applicant are serious about
misappropriating the amount of money orders by forging the signatures
of the addressees. A GDSBPM, who is a public servant and is
supposed to deliver letters and money orders timely in the villages, if
starts misappropriating the money of the customers, he loses the trust
of the people and his integrity is definitely questionable. Since one
charge of misappropriation is fully proved and in the other charges also
the disciplinary authority in his dissent note has explained the reasons
for dissent and taken a mindful decision, this Court finds no merit in the
Page 6 of 7

VIVEK
RAWAT

OA and no reason to interfere with the orders of the disciplinary as well
as appellate authorities.
8. The OA is accordingly dismissed. All pending MAs, if any, are
also dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Ms. Manju Pandey) (Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (A) Member (J)

vivek/

Page 7 of 7

VIVEK
RAWAT