R NATARAJAN vs D/o Post

1 OA/310/00705/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00705/2018
th
Dated this the 13 day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
R.Natarajan,
S/o Ramasamy,
No.5/59, Kanakkanpatti PO,
Ayakudi Via, Palani Taluk,
Dindigul District, .. Applicant
By Advocate Mr. T. Ashokraj for M/s. R. Malaichamy
Vs.
1. Union of India
rep by Director of Postal Services,
O/o the Postmaster General,
Southern Region (TN)
Madurai.
2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Dindigul Division,
Dindigul.
3. Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices,
Palani Sub Division
Palani.
4. Shri. V. Srinivasan
Inquiry Officer,
Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (HQ),
O/o Superintendent of Post Offices,
Theni Division, Theni. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. G. Dhamodaran

2 OA/310/00705/2018
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial
Member)
nd
The applicant being aggrieved by the order of the 2
respondent, dated 11.10.2017 in dismissing him from
st
engagement and which has been confirmed by the 1
respondent vide his order dated 08.03.2018, the applicant
has filed the OA to set aside the said orders and
consequently to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to settle the
retirement service benefits to the applicant as if he
retired/discharged from (service) engagement as on
24.10.2018 and to pass such further or other as this Hon'ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper
2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant
are:
The applicant was working as GDS BPM (Gramin Dak Sevak
Branch Postmaster) at Kanakkanpatti B.O. attached to
Ayakudi S.O. He was placed under put-off duty by the 3rd
respondent vide memo dated 30.01.2014, which was ratified
by the 2nd respondent vide memo dated 04.02.2014.

3 OA/310/00705/2018
Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued a charge
memorandum dated 13.04.2015 under Rule 10 of the GDS
(Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, alleging
irregularities committed by the applicant in the discharge of
his duties as GDS BPM, Kanakkanpatti B.O. The applicant
denied the charges, necessitating a departmental inquiry.
The Inquiry Officer, without duly considering the contentions
raised by the applicant in his written brief dated 07.06.2017,
held the charges proved in his report dated 15.06.2017. A
copy of the report was furnished to the applicant by the 2nd
respondent vide memo dated 16.06.2017, to which the
applicant submitted a detailed representation. The applicant
had rendered more than two decades of unblemished service
in the Department, and the charges in question were the sole
allegations against him. During the regular inquiry, the
Presenting Officer failed to establish the charges through
cogent oral and documentary evidence. However, the Inquiry
Officer held the charges proved by relying on statements
recorded during the preliminary inquiry. In these
circumstances, the imposition of a major penalty on the
applicant is unjustified. Aggrieved by the impugned order,

4 OA/310/00705/2018
the applicant has filed the present Original Application
challenging the same.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that
certain documents listed in Annexure III to the Charge
Memorandum were not produced by the Presenting Officer
during the regular inquiry, despite the applicant’s written
request. Further, out of ten additional documents sought by
the applicant for his defence vide list dated 14.03.2016, the
Inquiry Officer, by letter dated 22.03.2016, permitted only
three documents and declined the remaining seven. Thus,
the applicant was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend
himself, in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of
India, rendering the order of dismissal arbitrary and illegal.
4. The learned counsel further submitted that, during the
inquiry held on 20.09.2016, Shri M. Kamaraj (SW-1) stated,
in response to DQ-2, that his statement (SE.X.1) had been
written by Shri N. Maniyan as dictated by SW-6. Hence, the
said statement could not be treated as a voluntary statement

5 OA/310/00705/2018
of SW-1. Further, during the inquiry held on 10.01.2017,
Shri N. Maniyan stated, in response to DQ-4, that the
transaction balance had been correctly entered in his
passbook after the deposit of 1,000/-, that he had not ₹
produced the counterfoil of the pay-in slip, and that he had
lodged no complaint against the applicant. These material
aspects were allegedly ignored by the respondents.
5. The learned counsel contended that the prosecution
failed to produce any proof of settlement of claims, if any, to
the depositors to substantiate Articles I, II and III of the
charge memorandum. He further submitted that all the
depositors deposed during the regular inquiry that they had
not lodged any complaint against the applicant. As the
Presenting Officer failed to establish the charges through
cogent oral and documentary evidence, the imposition of the
major penalty of dismissal from engagement was unjustified.
6. The learned counsel finally submitted that the persons
who authored or recorded the depositors’ statements

6 OA/310/00705/2018
deposed during the regular inquiry that the statements had
been written as dictated by departmental authorities.
Therefore, the charges were not established by reliable oral
and documentary evidence during the regular inquiry,
rendering the dismissal order unsustainable. In support of
his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Madras High Court dated 03.01.2023 in Balagovinda Rao v.
Chief Engineer , W.P. No. 18133 of 2016, reported in
2023/MHC/261, and prayed that the relief sought in the
present Original Application be granted.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents,
relying on the reply statement, submitted that all three
articles of charge were duly established through oral and
documentary evidence adduced during the inquiry. The
Inquiry Officer, vide report dated 15.06.2017, rightly held
Articles I, II and III as proved based on the evidence recorded
during the regular inquiry and did not rely solely on the
statements obtained during the preliminary inquiry.

7 OA/310/00705/2018
8. The learned counsel further submitted that the State
witnesses identified the statements during the oral inquiry
and confirmed their contents. They neither stated that the
statements had been recorded at the dictation of
departmental authorities nor disputed their contents. The
applicant’s contention that the statements were dictated by
departmental authorities was, therefore, incorrect and had
not been raised during the inquiry.
9. The learned counsel contended that the applicant,
while functioning as GDS BPM, Kanakkanpatti B.O.,
attached to Ayakudi S.O., had collected deposits from rural
customers, made corresponding entries in their passbooks,
but failed to account for the amounts in the Post Office
records, thereby defrauding both the depositors and the
Department. Such misconduct was particularly serious, as
rural customers relied on Branch Post Offices for
safeguarding their small savings.
10. The learned counsel finally submitted that the

8 OA/310/00705/2018
applicant’s misconduct had seriously undermined public
confidence in the Post Office Savings Bank operations and
adversely affected the Department’s reputation. Considering
the gravity of the misconduct and the trust reposed by rural
depositors in the postal system, the applicant deserved the
maximum penalty and was unfit to continue in service.
Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the Original
Application.
11. The applicant has filed a Rejoinder to which the
respondents have also filed Reply reiterating their respective
contentions made in the OA and the reply statement.
12. We have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side, perused the pleadings and
materials on records. The case laws referred to by the
respective counsel were also perused by us.
13. It is seen from the records the said applicant was
issued a charge memorandum dated 13.04.2015, under Rule

9 OA/310/00705/2018
10 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2011, containing
the following 3 Articles of Charge:
“Article – I:
It is alleged that the said Shri. R.Natarajan,
GDSBPM(POD),Kanakkanpatti BO A/w Ayakudi SO
while working as GDSBPM, Kanakkanpatti BO on
28.12.2013 collected Rs.3000 from Smt.S.Rajeswari,
W/o Sundarasu, No. 126 A Rajapuram pudur,
Kanakkanpatti, depositor of SB account No. 59880
standing opened at Kanakkanpatti BO A/w Ayakudi SO,
made deposit entry in the pass book, impressed date
stamp and initialed against the entry but failed to credit
the amount into Post office accounts.
Article II:-
It is alleged that the said Shri. R.Natarajan,
GDSBPM(POD),Kanakkanpatti BO A/w Ayakudi SO
while working as GDSBPM, Kanakkanpatti BO on
07.08.2013 collected Rs.6000 from Smt.N. Palaniammal,
W/o Natchimuthu, Near Water Tank, Kanakkanpatti
depositor of SB account No. 50511 standing opened at
Kanakkanpatti BO A/w Ayakudi SO, made deposit entry
in the pass book and impressed date stamp but failed to
credit the amount into Post office accounts.
Article III:-
It is alleged that the said Shri. R. Natarajan,
GDSBPM(POD), Kanakkanpatti BO A/w Ayakudi SO
while working as GDSBPM, Kanakkanpatti BO on
04.12.2013 collected Rs.1000 from Shri. N. Maniyan,
S/o Natchimuthu, Pottampatti, Kanakkanpatti depositor
of SB account No. 46839 standing opened at
Kanakkanpatti BO A/w Ayakudi SO, made deposit entry
in the pass book impressed date stamp and initialed for
the entry, but failed to credit the amount into Post office
accounts
Thus, contravening the provisions of Rule 124 and 133 of
Rules for Branch offices (Eighth Edition) and thereby
failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty
as required of him in Rule 21 of GDS (Conduct and
Engagement) Rules, 2011.”

10 OA/310/00705/2018
14. It is evident from the records that the applicant denied
the charges vide representation dated 25.04.2015, following
which the Inquiry Officer (IO) and the Presenting Officer (PO)
were appointed. Upon completion of the inquiry, the IO
submitted his report dated 15.06.2017, holding all three
articles of charge as proved. The report was furnished to the
applicant on 16.06.2017, and the applicant submitted his
representation in defense on 15.07.2017. Upon considering
the inquiry report, the applicant’s representation and the
materials on record, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the
penalty of dismissal from engagement. The applicant’s
appeal against the said order was rejected by the Appellate
Authority vide order dated 08.03.2018, thereby confirming
the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
15. On examination of the records, it is seen that the
applicant had made deposit entries in the passbooks of the
depositors concerned without accounting for the
corresponding amounts in the Post Office records. The
applicant’s contention that the charges could not be
established in the absence of counterfoils of the pay-in slips,

11 OA/310/00705/2018
and that the entries might have been made as surplus
transactions during his intermittent absence from the office,
is not convincing. The depositors confirmed the amounts
deposited into their accounts, and the applicant was
responsible for the entries made in their passbooks. In these
circumstances, the applicant’s contention appears to be an
afterthought and does not displace the evidence against him.
16. The applicant’s challenge to the veracity of the
depositors’ statements on the ground that they were written
with the assistance of another person is also not acceptable.
During the regular inquiry, the applicant was afforded an
opportunity to cross-examine the depositors and the
witnesses who had recorded their statements. The depositors
confirmed the contents of their respective statements, and
the applicant failed to elicit any material during cross-
examination to discredit their testimony. Therefore, in the
absence of any demonstrated procedural irregularity or
material infirmity in the inquiry proceedings, we find no
sufficient ground to interfere with the findings of the Inquiry
Officer on this count.

12 OA/310/00705/2018
17. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Union of India
v. Indraj , order dated 13.11.2025, reported in 2025 INSC
1313, reiterated that the scope of judicial review in
disciplinary proceedings is limited and that the Court or
Tribunal should not reappreciate the evidence or substitute
its own conclusions for those of the departmental
authorities, in the absence of procedural irregularity or
perversity in the findings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
further observed as follows:
“11. Still aggrieved, the respondent challenged the order
passed in the Original Application before the High Court.
Vide impugned order, the High Court had misdirected
itself while extending the scope of jurisdiction which
could be exercised in matter of judicial review. The
merits of controversy were gone into. Even the admission
made by the respondent and voluntary deposit of the
amount misappropriated by him were dealt with and
finally the punishment imposed on the respondent was
set aside. He was directed to be reinstated back in
service. The High Court opined that mere suspicion is
not enough to punish him, not realizing the fact that it
was not a case of mere suspicion. The documents clearly
established the factum of embezzlement. The passbooks
of the account holders were stamped with the receipt of
the amount with no corresponding entries in the books of
accounts maintained in the post office. It is a matter of
chance that the embezzlement made by the respondent
came to the notice of the authorities that action could be
taken against him while restoring the amount to the post
office. However, the fact remains that mere deposit of the
embezzled amount will not absolve an employee of the
misconduct. Relationship of a customer with a banker is
of mutual trust. Any account holder will be satisfied once
an entry is made in his passbook regarding deposit of
any amount by him in the post office where he had

13 OA/310/00705/2018
maintained the account. An account holder may not be
privy to the manner in which the accounts are
maintained by the post office and also whether the
corresponding entries were made or not in the books of
accounts maintained there. The respondent tried to
explain the embezzlement by stating that on account of
ignorance of the Rules, the passbooks of the account
holders were stamped. Such an explanation cannot be
accepted being farfetched. He had been in service for
about 12 years. Ignorance of rules of the procedure with
so much experience cannot be accepted. There was no
defect or error pointed out in the course of inquiry. The
High Court had travelled beyond its jurisdiction in trying
to explain the admission of the respondent which was
nothing else but an afterthought.
12. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is
allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is
set aside. The punishment imposed upon the respondent
is upheld.”
18. In the present case, the materials on record, including
the depositors’ statements and the entries made in their
passbooks, were considered during the departmental
inquiry, and all three articles of charge were held proved. The
applicant was afforded an opportunity to participate in the
inquiry and cross-examine the witnesses. However, he has
not established any procedural irregularity or infirmity
sufficient to vitiate the inquiry findings. His contentions
regarding the non-production of certain documents, the
absence of counterfoils of pay-in slips and the veracity of the
depositors’ statements do not, in the facts and

14 OA/310/00705/2018
circumstances of the case, provide sufficient grounds to
interfere with the findings of the departmental authorities.
The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal
from engagement after considering the inquiry report and the
applicant’s representation, and the Appellate Authority
affirmed the same.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion and the principles
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v.
Indraj (supra), we find no sufficient ground to interfere with
the impugned orders. Accordingly, the applicant has failed to
make out a case warranting interference by this Tribunal.
The Original Application is, therefore, dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
(M.L. SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
13.10.2026
mas

M A
SUNDAR
Digitally signed by
M A SUNDAR
Date: 2026.11.02
16:36:39 +05'30'