P RAVI @ RATHINAVELCHAMY vs M/o Communications

1 OA 820/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH

OA/310/00820/2017


Dated, the day of June, Two Thousand Twenty Six

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR.M.SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
&
HON’BLE MR.M.L.SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (A)

P.Ravi @ Rathinavelchamy
S/o.R.Palani Boopathy Thevar,
No.125, East Street, Illanjembur BO & Post,
Mudhukulathur SO,
Ramanathapuram District, PIN-623 704 … Applicant

By Advocate .. M/s.R.Malaichamy


Vs.


1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Director of Postal Services,
O/o. the Postmaster General, Southern Region (TN),
Madurai - 625 002.

2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Ramanathapuram Division,
Ramanathapuram - 623 501 … Respondents



By Advocate .. Ms.Shakila Anand

2 OA 820/2017
ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.M.L.SRIVASTAVA, Member(A))

The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
“1)To call for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to his order
which is made in F1/5/11-12 dated 26.11.2015 and the order of 1st
respondent made in Memo No. VIG/15-14/16-17 MA dated
23.08.2016 and set aside the same; consequent to,
2) direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service with all
attendant benefits; and
3) To pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”


2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are as follows:

2.1 The applicant, while working as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster
(GDS BPM), Illanjembur BO a/w Mudhukulathur SO, was issued a Rule -10
Charge sheet dated 04.10.2012 by the 2nd respondent alleging that he has
committed irregularities in making payment of money orders to the payee(s)
namely, Smt. P.Poikodiyal, V.Rajarampandian and Smt. R.Muthukilavi. But,
during inquiry before framing of the charges, the payees admitted that they
received the money orders and also the Left Thumb Impression (LTI) found in
the EMOS are of their own. The applicant denied the charges levelled against
him. Hence, an inquiry was ordered to be conducted. The Presenting Officer
(PO) submitted his brief dated 03.06.2015 and requested the Inquiry Officer
(IO) to prove the charges. The so-called complainants/payees did not attend
inquiry, but their alleged statements were introduced without through them.

3 OA 820/2017
The IO held the charges as proved without man and material evidence, vide
report dated 06.07.2015.
2.2 The averment made, under Annexure II of the charge sheet dated
04.10.2012, by the 2nd respondent clearly established that the payees
received the amount and also accepted the LTI found in the EMOs of their own.
The brief of the PO and the report of the IO also clearly revealed that the
documents were not introduced by the owner of the documents. It is evident
that the IO has not proved the case by man and material evidence, but by
assumption and presumption, the 2nd respondent dismissed the applicant from
engagement by an order dated 26.11.2015. The 1st respondent without
considering the various points raised by the applicant in his appeal dated
19.02.2016, rejected the appeal, by an order dated 23.08.2016. The main
contention of the applicant is that it is evident from the brief of the PO and the
report of the IO that the so-called complainants/payees did not attend inquiry.
Hence, conducting inquiry based on their so-called complaint is unjustifiable
and also amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the
documents, if any, have to be introduced only through the owner of the
documents. In the case of the applicant, no such witnesses have attended the
inquiry and their documents were introduced to them. Therefore, dismissing
the applicant based on the so-called complaints of the payees is arbitrary and
illegal. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the
aforesaid relief.
3. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their

4 OA 820/2017
counsel and filed their reply statement refuting all the averments made in the
OA except those which are admitted on facts and also reiterating the
statements made by them in the impugned order.
3.1 The respondents have submitted that 31 nos. of payees had reported
that they had not received the value of e-Money order for 3 months from
Ilanjembur BO by putting their LTI Impression in the complaint SE-7 including
Smt.Poikodiyal & Smt. R.Muthukilavi . Smt. Poikodiyal & Smt. R.Muthukilavi
have given individual statements that the content of the complaint is true and
they had not received the value of OAP for the past 3 months vide SE-14 but
received the amount of Rs 1000/- only on 05.10.2011 from Shri
M.Ramamoorthy, GDSMD, Ilanjembur BO without affixing their LTI in the eMO
form. The applicant in his statement dated 05.10.2011 given before the
Inspector Post, Mudukulathur Sub Division deposed that he had affixed his own
LTI in the OAP money order forms received to the payee Smt P.Poikodiyal, &
Smt. R.Muthukilavi for the month of July 2011 to September 2011 and paid the
value of money order for the month of September 2011 to Smt P.Poikodiyal, &
Smt. R.Muthukilavi on 5.10.11 through GDSMD of his office. During further
enquiry Smt P.Poikodiyal, & Smt. R.Muthukilavi in their statements dated
05.06.2012 had deposed that they had made a false complaint and accepted
the LTIs found in the EMO No: 112533110908049143 & EMO No:
112533110908056263 are their own LTI respectively. The applicant in his
statement dated 05.06.2012 given before the Inspector Post, Mudukulathur
Sub Division deposed that he had given wrong statement on 05.10.2011 and

5 OA 820/2017
the LTI found in the EMO No: 112533110908049143 is that of Smt P.Poikodiyal,
& the LTI found in the EMO No: 112533110908056263 is that of Smt.
R.Muthukilavi. The question is, how both the payees and the applicant had
given wrong statements on 05.10.2011. Thus, it is clear that the statements
on 05.06.2012 are merely an afterthought.
3.2 The respondents further submitted that the averment of the applicant
that before conduction of regular inquiry thes payee disowned their statement
is not correct. The payees had not disowned their statement, but deposed that
the statement given by them is a wrong statement. While approaching the
payees for submitting their claim applications after getting the original eMO
paid vouchers, they have deposed that they have received the payment and
they wrongly lodged complaint due to their non-remembrance of receiving their
payment. It is wonder that how 31 nos.of payees have forgotten the receipt of
payment in the same time. Further, they have lodged the complaint voluntarily
but they had not withdrawn the complaint themselves. Only after the IP
approached the payees to record the statements by showing the eMO paid
vouchers, they have admitted the receipt of payment and expressed their
willingness to withdraw the complaint on 05.06.2012. The applicant has also
denied the misappropriation committed by him in his statement dated
05.06.2012. It seems that the applicant has locally settled the amount to the
payees. Further it is submitted that the version of the applicant that IO proved
the case against the applicant without any material evidence is not correct. The
standard of proof required in departmental proceeding is that of preponderance

6 OA 820/2017
of probability and the documentary evidences filed in the inquiry are enough
to prove the charges framed against the applicant.
3.3 The respondents further submitted that the documents given by the
payees were introduced through Shri S.Nadarajan, then IP, Mudukulathur Sub
Division now ASP(OD), Madurai Division (SW-3). The applicant has signed in
the portion of signature of Paying official in SE-8, SE-9, SE-10 and SE-11. As
Ilanjembur BO has GDSBPM & GDSMD, GDSMD has the power to deliver and
the CGDS should have entrusted the eMO to the GDSMD. As per SE-8, SE-9,
SE-10 and SE-11, the applicant himself signed as paying official which shows
that the applicant had misappropriated the OAP amount himself without
entrusting the money order to GDSMD for effecting payment and utilized the
value of the said money order amount for his personal use. By the act of his
misappropriation, he tarnished the image of the department before the public
eyes. Thus, the applicant had committed a grave offence of utilizing the
government money for his personal use causing undue sufferings to the OAP
beneficiaries and exhibited utter lack of integrity and devotion to duty. Hence,
the Disciplinary Authority has taken a decision after careful consideration of
the entire records of the case and the punishment awarded is commensurate
with the gravity of offence committed.
3.4 It is submitted that even though the appeal preferred by the applicant
has already been disposed by the Appellate Authority & First Respondent, the
applicant has not exhausted the next stage of remedy i.e., preferring review
petition. Without availing the departmental remedy available to him he has

7 OA 820/2017
filed this OA. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. The applicant has also filed a rejoinder, reiterating the averments made
in the OA and the respondents have also filed a reply to the rejoinder reiterating
the averments made in the reply statement.
5. In support of his contentions, the applicant has relied upon the orders of
this Tribunal in OA No.1245/2012, dated 07.06.2016, OA No.1850/2014 dated
05.01.2017 & OA No.1697/2016 dated 18.11.2025.
6. Heard Mr.R.Malaichamy for the applicant and Ms.Shakila Anand, learned
standing counsel for the respondents and perused the material placed on
record and scrutinized the whole conspectus of the case.


(M.L.SRIVASTAVA) (M.SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J)

MT .06.2026

Digitally signed by THANGAM M
Date: 2026.09.02 10:06:08
+05'30'
THANGAM M