VENUKUMAR P vs D/o Post

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH

O.A No. 180/01035/2016

th
Friday this the 30 day of October, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

P. Venukumar,
GDSMD (Removed from engagement),
Kodithookiyakunnu P.O., Via Kallara P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 608
Residing at V.C. Bhavan, Tengupadam,
Kodithookiyakunnu P.O., Via Kallara P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 608 - Applicant

[ By Advocate: Mr. Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil ]

V e r s u s
1. Union of India,
Represented by the Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram-695 033

2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office,
Thiruvananthapuram North Postal Division,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 033

3. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Office/
Adhoc Disciplinary Authority,
Thiruvananthapuram North Sub Division,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 036 - Respondents

[ By Advocates: Mr. Anil Ravi,ACGSC ]



2026.10.30
V R Arunkumar
14:30:25+05'30'

2
O.A No. 180/01035/2016




The Original Application having been heard on 17.09.2026 the Tribunal
on 30.10.2026 delivered the following:

O R D E R
Per: Mr. Braj Mohan Agrawal, Administrative Member

The applicant is a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer (GDSMD) under
Postal Department, who was removed from engagement w.e.f. 10.04.2015 by
Annexure A-2 order. As per the applicant, while working as a GDS, he was
placed under put off on 12.4.2010 in contemplation of disciplinary
proceedings. On 27.6.2012, an adhoc disciplinary authority was appointed, but
the charge sheet was issued on 7.8.2013. An enquiry report was submitted on
28.1.2015, and Final order of removal from engagement was passed on
10.4.2015. The applicant filed a revision petition on 29.9.2015, as he could not
file appeal on account of extreme financial stress. The revisional authority
passed Annexure A-4 orders on 2.5.2016 rejecting the revision petition and
confirmed the penalty, in effect, after 6 years of being placed under put off,
the disciplinary proceedings concluded. Aggrieved by the orders of penalty the
present O.A. has been filed.

2026.10.30
V R Arunkumar
14:30:25+05'30'

3
O.A No. 180/01035/2016




2. The charge against the applicant is as follows:-
"That the said P. Venukumar, GDSMD (POD) Kodithookiyakunnu B.O.
while working as GDSMD Kodithookiyakunnu during March 2010
treated Nedumangad MDG Money Order No.1868/55 dated
23.03.2010 for Rs.500/- and No. 1868/56 dated 23.03.2010 for
Rs.500/- and payable to G.Sudhakaran, Kunnumpurath Veedu,
Cheruvalam, K.T.Kunnu.P.О., Kallara, Thiruvananthapuram as paid
without actually paying the value of money orders to the correct
payee and without obtaining signature of the actual payee of the
said money order.

By his above Act Sri. P. Venukumar violated Rule 121(3), 127(1) and
129(1) of the Postal Manual Volume VI Part III 6th Edition corrected
up to 30th June, 1986 and misappropriated the said money order
amount violating Rule 216 of Postal Manual Volume V and thereby
failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as
envisaged in Rule 21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevak
(Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011.”

3. The applicant denied the charge levelled again him. An inquiry was held
and Annexure A-1 inquiry report dated 28.01.2015, proving the charge against
the applicant was submitted. A copy of the inquiry report was sent to the
applicant on 02.03.2015 asking him to submit written submission, if any. The
applicant submitted his representation. Thereon, Annexure A-2 order dated
10.04.2015 imposing penalty of removal from engagement was issued. The
applicant did not file an appeal, but filed a revision petition dated 29.09.2015,
Annexure A-3, which came to be rejected by Annexure A-4 order dated
02.05.2016.
There is only one charge against the applicant i.e. that the applicant
2026.10.30
V R Arunkumar
14:30:25+05'30'

4
O.A No. 180/01035/2016




failed to effect payment of money orders and treated the money orders as paid,
without actually effecting payment.

4. The applicant submits that in the instant case, it took 27 months from
the date of put off to the issuance of charge sheet. It can thus be seen that
the instructions of the Government to complete proceedings against GDS
under put off within 3 months is completely violated. It took nearly six years
to complete the process of inquiry upto revisional order. The applicant was
placed under put off on 12.04.2010 and which continued upto 10.04.2015.
This continued and prolonged put off is against Rules and is against all norms
of natural justice. The Director General, Posts instructions regarding review of
put off duty cases have not been followed. Due to financial crisis on account
of non-increase of ex-gratia for 5 years, he could not take part in the
disciplinary proceedings, more specifically the sitting dated 16.10.2014.


5. Primarily, the followings grounds have been taken by the applicant in
his pleadings:-
(i) Non-enhancement of ex-gratia- Had the ex-gratia been enhanced, the
applicant would not have been in financial difficulty, which prevented him
2026.10.30
V R Arunkumar
14:30:25+05'30'

5
O.A No. 180/01035/2016




from attending crucial sittings of the disciplinary proceedings.

(ii) It is mandatory to provide submission of statement of defence after the
close of prosecution case. This valuable right of defence has been dispensed
with by the enquiry authority.

(iii) No notice was issued to the applicant fixing the time, date and venue
for submission of statement of defence. Neither was any recordings made in
the previous enquiry proceedings, regarding the date, time and venue for
submission of statement of defence.

(iv) Self examination of the delinquent employee has not been held in the
present case. In terms of Rule 17 of CCS(CCA) Rules, which is followed in the
matter of enquiry proceedings in respect of GDS, self examination of
delinquent employee is mandatory.


6. Aggrieved by Annexure A-2 and A-4 orders, the applicant has filed this
Original Application and sought the following reliefs:-
(i) Call for the records leading to the issue of
Annexure A2 and A-4 and set aside Annexures A-2 and A4

2026.10.30
V R Arunkumar
14:30:25+05'30'

6
O.A No. 180/01035/2016




(ii) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure
A1 and set aside Annexure A1

(i) Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant
back to service with all consequential benefits

7. The respondents filed their reply statement and contend that they have
scrupulously followed all instructions and rules in conducting the inquiry and
all reasonable opportunities have been given to the applicant to present his
case in the inquiry. It is settled law that the role of judicial review in
departmental inquiry proceedings is limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held in the decision reported in the case of Union of India vs. K.G. Sony {2006
SCC(L&S) 1568} that punishment being not one shocking to the conscience of
the court, to interfere therewith is not called for and that judicial review is
confined to the decision-making process.
In the instant case, the applicant was removed from service after
conducting a detailed inquiry under Rule-10 of the Gramin Dak Sevaks
(Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. The Inquiring Authority(IA) submitted
its report on 28.01.2015 holding the lone charge against the applicant as
proved. A copy of the report of the IA was made available to the applicant and
he submitted his representation on 13.03.2015 to the third respondent. After
going through the inquiry report and connected records, the disciplinary
authority ordered removal of the applicant from engagement with immediate
2026.10.30
V R Arunkumar
14:30:25+05'30'

7
O.A No. 180/01035/2016




effect vide Annexure A-2 proceedings. The applicant chose to prefer revision
petition vide Annexure A3 before the 1st respondent without filing any appeal
against the order of removal to the appellate authority. The same was rejected
vide Annexure A-4 order by the competent authority after duly taking into
consideration all the averments raised by the applicant in Annexure A -3.

8. A Presenting Officer was appointed to present the case on behalf of the
department and the applicant utilized the services of an Assisting Government
Servant(AGS). It is submitted that it was a fair and impartial inquiry and not a
biased and one sided proceedings, as averred by the applicant. In the instant
case, the applicant had not raised the issue of bias during the entire
proceedings. Having participated in the proceedings without any demur, the
applicant is estopped from raising such issues at this stage, after knowing that
the decision has gone against him.

9. The respondents further contend that the venue of the inquiry was
shifted to a place convenient to the applicant but even after that, the applicant
employed dilatory tactics to scuttle the inquiry on one reason or the other.
The applicant had averred that the deposition of PW - 6 is the result of
extreme threat from the Presenting Officer and the ex-parte statement of PW
2026.10.30
V R Arunkumar
14:30:25+05'30'

8
O.A No. 180/01035/2016




6 was taken without being subjected to cross examination. In this regard, it is
submitted by the respondents that the examination of PW- 6 was done on
16.10.2014. The IA had informed the applicant well in advance in writing that
the inquiry would be held ex parte if the applicant failed to attend the inquiry.
The AGS was also present during the entire sitting held on 16.10.2014
including the examination of PW-6, the crucial witness. There is no dispute that
the AGS was engaged by the applicant to assist him in presenting his case. The
AGS had not raised any objection regarding the examination of PW-6 Therefore,
the argument that the applicant was denied the right of cross examination of
crucial witness is devoid of merit.
The applicant has further contended that there was no complaint from
the payee of the money order i.e. PW – 6. This will not hold water in view of
the fact that PW- 6 himself attended the inquiry and deposed before the IA
regarding the facts of the case, affirming genuineness of the complaint and
non-receipt of amounts by him as per Money Orders.

10. The respondents also submit that no proceedings were conducted
rd th
during the 3 and 4 sittings due to the absence of the applicant. On the other
hand, the IA had given due consideration to the inconvenience pointed out by
the applicant and shifted the venue of the inquiry to Kallara, a place
2026.10.30
V R Arunkumar
14:30:25+05'30'

9
O.A No. 180/01035/2016




th
convenient to the applicant, from the 5 sitting onwards. Therefore, the
arguments of the applicant in this regard are devoid of merit.

11. Regarding delay in issuing of Charge Sheet, it is submitted by
respondents that past work verification of the entire monetary transactions
involving the applicant had to be carried out as part of investigation, which is
a time consuming process involving collection of evidence by contacting the
payees, questioning and recording statements from payees etc., Charge sheet
could be issued only after completion of the investigation as explained above.
However, the delay in issuing the charge sheet and finalizing the inquiry had in
no way hampered the opportunities of the applicant to effectively defend his
case nor contributed to the imposition of penalty. Having failed to prove his
innocence, the applicant is coming up with baseless averments.

12. Contending the averment of the applicant that no notice was issued to
the applicant fixing the time, date and venue for submission of statement of
defence, respondents submit that this averment is baseless in view of the fact
that the IA had clearly stated in the proceedings dated 16.10.2014 that if the
applicant desired to be self-examined, the same might be intimated to the IA
within 10 days. The AGS, who was present throughout the inquiry dated
2026.10.30
V R Arunkumar
14:30:25+05'30'

10
O.A No. 180/01035/2016




16.10.2014, did not raise any objection at that point of the inquiry.

As per Rule 14(16) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, when the case for the
disciplinary authority is closed, the charged Government servant(CGS) shall be
required to state his defence orally or in writing, as he may prefer. The CGS
shall be formally called upon to state his defence. It is up to the CGS to make
or not to make a defence statement. The IA cannot compel the applicant to
state his defence, if the applicant does not wish so. If the applicant considered
submission of statement of defence as necessary to prove his innocence,
nothing prevented him from submitting the same before the the IA.

13. Shri Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil, learned counsel for the applicant and
Shri Anil Ravi, learned Standing Counsel were heard at length on 17.09.2026
and perused the records with their help.

14. We find that the applicant was on put off duty on the complaint of Shri
G. Sudhakaran, who was not paid amounts in two Money Orders, but were
treated to be paid by the applicant. Following a preliminary inquiry with
respect of past work verification of money transactions involving the applicant,
he was issued with Charge Sheet dated 29.11.2012 under Rule 10 of Gramin
2026.10.30
V R Arunkumar
14:30:25+05'30'

11
O.A No. 180/01035/2016




Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, following which an inquiry
was held, Presenting Officer was nominated by the Department and the
applicant engaged AGS of his choice.

15. It is evident from the proceedings that inquiry was held on multiple
th
sittings and venue of the inquiry was also shifted to Kallara from the 5 sitting
onwards to suit the convenience of the applicant and no proceedings were
rd th
conducted during 3 and 4 sitting due to absence of the applicant.
The payee of the money order, Shri Sudhakaran has himself identified
exhibit D-1 as letter of complaint given by him before the sub-divisional
authority and has deposed the same before the IA. Therefore, genuineness of
the complaint is well established.
The payee Shri Sudhakaran has himself deposed that he did not receive
the money orders, which were treated to be paid by the applicant. As the
complainant during the inquiry identified the statement and deposed that he
is the complainant before the sub divisional ASP, the conclusion drawn by the
IA is found to be logical and well-reasoned.

16. The argument of the applicant that he could not examine the crucial
prosecution witness No.6 , Shri Sudhakaran does not hold water as the IA had
2026.10.30
V R Arunkumar
14:30:25+05'30'

12
O.A No. 180/01035/2016




issued prior notice regarding inquiry to be held on 16.10.2015 and his AGS,
nominated by him was present during the proceeding.

17. While it may not be necessary to follow the provisions of Rules 14 of
CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 literally, in the case of ED agents as they are governed by
separate and specific rules i.e. Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement)
Rules, 2011. However, it is desirable to follow the provisions of CCS(CCA) Rules
in spirit. Here, we find that reasonable opportunities were afforded to the
applicant to defend himself including change of venue of inquiry as per his
convenience, nomination of AGS of his choice, reasonable opportunities of
defence during inquiry proceedings. On the crucial date of examination i.e.
16.10.2015, the applicant chose himself not to attend the inquiry proceedings,
though intimated in advance by IA. The AGS was available throughout during
the inquiry proceedings on 16.10.2015 and has signed the proceedings. The
prosecution witness No.6 was available for cross examination.

18. We also note that IA has clearly stated on 16.10.2015 that if the
petitioner desires to be self examined by the IA, the same may be intimated to
the IA within 10 days. Thereafter, it was upto the applicant to make or not to
make a defence statement. If the applicant considered statement of defence
2026.10.30
V R Arunkumar
14:30:25+05'30'

13
O.A No. 180/01035/2016




as necessary to prove his innocence, nothing prevented him from submitting
the same before the IA.

19. The plea of the applicant that complaint letter from G. Sudhakaran, the
payee of MO was not a genuine document is untenable. During the inquiry
proceedings, the document has been identified by the complainant himself.
Hence, the authenticity of the document has been proved beyond any doubt
and the averments of the applicant in this regard are baseless. The
complainant has deposed himself that he has not received amounts under
MOs, thereby proving the lone charge framed against the applicant.

20. The IA submitted the inquiry report dated 28.01.2015 and copy of the
inquiry report has been made available to the applicant. Thereon, he made
representation, taking into account his representation and documents on
record, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of removal from
engagement with effect from 10.04.2015 by a speaking and detailed order
(Annexure A-2). The applicant did not submit an appeal against Annexure A-2
order but preferred a revision petition, Annexure A-3 dated 29.09.2015. His
revision petition has been rejected by detailed and speaking order (Annexure
A-4) dated 02.05.2016 covering all his pleas in his representation.
2026.10.30
V R Arunkumar
14:30:25+05'30'

14
O.A No. 180/01035/2016




Contention of the applicant regarding increase in the amount of ex-
gratia is not connected with instant proceedings. That would be a separate
cause of grievance, for which the applicant could have approached authorities
concerned or this Tribunal at appropriate time.

21. We note the following observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court’s in the
case of S hri Parma Nanda Vs State of Haryana and others [1989 (2) Supreme
Court Cases 177] that :
"The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary
matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate
jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the
Inquiry Officer or Competent Authority where they are not
arbitrary or utterly perverse (emphasis supplied)".

The above observation of the Apex Court is squarely applicable in the
instant case. In the present case, charges have been proven beyond doubt.
No procedural irregularity has been established in disciplinary proceedings,
which might have vitiated it.

22. It is specific case of breach of public trust. The public at large repose
faith in the Postal Department for the delivery of money by way of Money
Order in a bonafide manner. Drawing from the following observation of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Manger, UPSRTC, Etawah Vs
2026.10.30
V R Arunkumar
14:30:25+05'30'

15
O.A No. 180/01035/2016




Hoti Lal (CA No. 5984 of 2000):
"if the charged employee holds a position where honesty and
integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be
proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases
has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public
money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary
capacity, highest degree of integrity and trust-worthiness is must
and unexceptionable (emphasis supplied)".

we cannot have any misplaced sympathy with the applicant.

In view of above judicial observations and findings, we find no merit in
the Original Application, accordingly the OA is dismissed. No costs.
th
(Dated the 30 October, 2026)


BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL JUSTICE K. HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER


va




2026.10.30
V R Arunkumar
14:30:25+05'30'

16
O.A No. 180/01035/2016




Annexures OA/180/01035/2016


Annexure A-1- True copy of the enquiry report dated 28.01.2015
submitted by the Assistant Superintendent & Inquiry Authority

Annexure A-2- True copy of the order No.F/ASP/K.T. Kunnu dated
rd
10.04.2015 issued by the 3 respondent

Annexure A-3- True copy of revision petition dated 29.09.2015 submitted
st
by the applicant to the 1 respondent

Annexure A-4- True copy of the Order No.VIG/RP/2/PV/51/2015 dated
st
02.05.2016 issued by the 1 respondent

*


2026.10.30
V R Arunkumar
14:30:25+05'30'