N GOVINDARAJU vs D/o Post

1 OA 1618/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH

OA/310/01618/2017

th
Dated, the 20 day of August, Two Thousand Twenty Six

CORAM :

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

N.Govindaraju,
S/o. Nagappan,
No. 1/144, Kamarajar Street,
Thittacherry, Vadapathymangalam,
Tiruvarur District … Applicant

By Advocate .. M/s. R.Malaichamy


Vs.


1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002

2. Director of Postal Services,
O/o. the Postmaster General, Central Region (TN),
Tiruchirappalli - 620 001.

3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Thanjavur Division, Thanjavur - 613 001 … Respondents



By Advocate .. Mr.M.Kishore Kumar SPC

2 OA 1618/2017
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 3rd respondent pertaining to his orders
which is made in (1) Memo No.F1/Misc/02/12-13 dated 30.09.2015 and
(2) Memo No:STC/3-30/2015/Tr dated 01.08.2017, the order of the 2nd
respondent which is made in Memo No. VIG/11-172/2016 dated
08.03.2016 and the order of the 1st respondent which is made in Memo
No.F1/Misc/02/12-13 dated 04.04.2017 and set aside the same;
consequent to;
2.direct the respondents to refund the amount of difference of pay and
allowances in lieu of imposition of punishment on the applicant and
further direct the respondents to treat the suspension periods from
12.04.2014 to 27.08.2014 as duty period for all purpose and 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 this case as stated by the applicant are as follows:

2.1 The applicant is working as Postal Assistant at Collectorate SO, Thanjavur.
When he was working as SPM, Vadapathimangalam SO, the 3rd respondent
issued a letter dated 22.11.2011 to the applicant alleging that the Postmaster,
Mannarkudi HO reported in his O.M. dated 24.09.2011 that the applicant had
credited the maturity value in respect of 5 Monthly Income Saving (MIS) a/c Nos.
580043, 580044, 580051, 580052 and 580053 amounting to Rs. 1,98,500/- in
the S.B. account and paid to the messenger Shri.K.Kaliyamoorthy, instead of
depositor Smt. K.Thulasibai and that the applicant has not sent MIS passbooks
in respect of 5 accounts to Mannarkudi HO and sought the explanation of the
applicant within 3 days. On receipt of letter dated 22.11.2011, the applicant
submitted a reply dated 26.11.2011 by narrating that since the depositor was
unwell, she has requested her husband namely K.Kaliyamoorthy to withdraw the
said amount for their urgent need of money and therefore the applicant, after
ascertaining the issue and fact, paid the money to the said K.Kaliyamoorthy in
good faith as requested by the depositor. He has also handed over the closed MIS

3 OA 1618/2017
passbooks to the said K.Kaliyamoorthy as requested by him.
2.2 Not satisfied by the reply dated 26.11.2011 of the applicant, the 3rd
respondent issued a charge sheet dated 09.04.2012 to the applicant under Rule
-16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant replied to the said charge sheet vide
letter dated 18.04.2012 reiterating his stand taken in his earlier reply dated
26.11.2011. On receipt of reply dated 18.04.2012 of the applicant, the 3rd
respondent withdrew the Rule-16 charge sheet dated 09.04.2012 with an
intention to initiate Rule-14 inquiry for the same charge set out in Rule-16 charge
sheet.
2.3 The Rule-16 allegations were split into three articles and a Rule-14 charge
sheet dated 23.04.2013 has been issued against the applicant. The applicant,
vide his reply dated 14.05.2013 narrated the incident explaining that he has not
committed any misappropriation of the public money or the departmental funds
and there was no loss to the department. Aggrieved by the issue of Rule-14
charge sheet, the applicant made a representation dated 08.08.2013 requesting
the 2nd respondent to cause a direction to the 3rd respondent to withdraw the
Rule -14 proceedings.
2.4 The representation dated 08.08.2013 addressed to the 2nd respondent was
rejected by the 3rd respondent vide his order dated 22.11.2013 without assigning
any valid reasons. The applicant submitted bias petitions to the authorities
against the Inquiry Officer (IO), but the same were rejected. The IO conducted
the inquiry in tune with the directions given by the disciplinary authority. In the
meanwhile, as instructed by the then 2nd respondent, the applicant was placed
under suspension from 12.04.2014 to 27.08.2014. The brief of the P.O. dated
05.03.2015 was furnished to the applicant for his reply and the applicant, vide
his reply dated 07.04.2015 reiterated his stand taken in his earlier reply dated
26.11.2011.
2.5 Without considering the various points raised by the applicant in his reply

4 OA 1618/2017
dated 07.04.2015 to the P.O.'s brief, the I.O. has held the three charges as proved
and the said report dated 06.08.2015 was furnished to the applicant. The
applicant replied on 10.09.2015 to the 1.O.'s report dated 06.08.2015 and
requested the 3rd respondent to drop the charges levelled against him. Without
considering the various points and grounds raised by the applicant, in his reply
to the P.O.s brief and IO's report, the 3rd respondent imposed major punishment
of reduction of pay in Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200 + G.P. of Rs.2400 by two stages
from Rs.9300+ G.P. of Rs.2400/- to Rs.8630/- +GP. Rs.2400/- for a period of two
years with effect from 01.10.2015. On expiry of the said period, the reduction
will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay vide his order
dated 30.09.2015.
2.6 Aggrieved by the order of 3rd respondent dated 30.09.2015, the applicant
preferred an appeal dated 11.11.2015 to the 2nd respondent and it was rejected
by an order dated 08.03.2016 and revision petition submitted to the 1st
respondent was also rejected by an order dated 01.08.2017. Further, the
applicant was placed under suspension with effect from 12.04.2014 to
27.08.2014 and the said period was treated as non-duty. Therefore, it is evident
that the applicant has been imposed double major punishment for allegation of
not following the procedures in discharging the MIS amount to the depositors.
2.7 The contention of the applicant is that since the depositor Tmt.K.Thulasibhai
was unwell, as requested by her, the applicant allowed the depositor’s husband
and her messenger Mr.K.Kaliyamoorthy to withdraw the amount. In the year
nd
2012, when the officer of the 2 respondent office visited Mannarkudi HO, he
issued instructions to make payment to the messenger and when the same was
cited by the applicant, he was placed under suspension. Further, the report of
the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad dated 14.03.2013 was not
introduced by the author of the report and the said officer was dispensed with by
the IO as requested by the PO. Further, as per provisions of Rule 43(6) of POSB

5 OA 1618/2017
Manual Vol.I only, the applicant had handed over the pass books to the husband
of the depositor as requested by them. Hence, the punishment imposed on the
applicant is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. Being aggrieved,
the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the aforesaid relief.
3. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their
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 the charge sheet under Rule 16 of
the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued against the applicant vide 3rd respondent
memo no: Tech/Misc/VPM/NG dated 09.04.2012 for the following charge for
violation of instructions contained in the SB Order No. 2/2008 and 16/2008.
"That the applicant viz., Sri. N. Govindaraju, SPM, Vadapathimangalam SO
allowed withdrawal from SB account no. 376068 in which closed MIS
amount was credited to the messenger and did not forward the closed MIS
passbooks and SB-3 cards on 20.09.2011".

In the meantime, the report no. CH-113/12 dated 14.03.2013 of Government
Examiner, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad was received in which
it was opined that there was no significant similarity and the authorship of
signatures found in SB-3 cards(account opening form) of the said 5 MIS accounts
and 1 SB account and SB-7A (closure) vouchers of the said 5 MIS accounts and
1 SB-7(withdrawal) voucher of the said SB account differs. As the signatures of
the depositor available in the withdrawal/closure vouchers were allegedly forged
and still they had been passed by the applicant, as per the instructions contained
in the DG P&T's letter No. 114/324/78-Disc. II dated 05.07.1979, on considering
the facts, circumstances and relevant records of the case, the charge memo dated
09.04.2012 issued against the applicant under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965 was dropped without prejudice to any further action, vide 3rd respondent
memo dated 30.03.2013.

6 OA 1618/2017
3.2 Subsequently, fresh charge sheet was issued against the applicant vide 3rd
respondent viz., SSPOs, Thanajvur Division memo no: F1/Misc/02/12-13 dated
23.04.2013 under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 for the following articles
of charges:
1. Allowed withdrawal to the messenger without verifying the signature of
depositor on 20.09.2011 from SB account no: 376068 in which closed MIS
maturity amount of Rs.1,98,500/- was credited on the same day.
2. Failed to verify the signature of depositor found in the application side of
SB-7A (Closure forms) dated 20.09.2011 of MIS accounts No. 580043,
580044, 580051, 580052, 580053 and SB-7 (Withdrawal form) dated
20.09.2011 of SB account number 376068.
3. Failed to forward the closed MIS passbooks accounts no. 580043,
580044, 580051, 580052 and 580053 to Mannargudi HO on 20.09.2011.

3.3 The applicant protracted the inquiry by filing irrelevant petitions perpetually
and stalled the inquiry. As per the directions contained in the 2nd respondent's
letter No. STC/21-Misc/2011/TR dated 10.04.2014, the applicant was placed
under suspension w.e.f. 11.04.2014 A/N for causing undue delay in conducting
the inquiry.
3.4 The Rule 14 case was finalized by the 3rd respondent viz., the Disciplinary
authority, vide memo no. F1/Misc/02/12-13 dated 30.09.2015. The applicant was
awarded with a penalty of reduction of pay by two stages from Rs.9,300/- +
Grade pay of Rs.2,400/- to Rs.8,630/- + Grade pay of Rs.2,400/- for a period of
two years with effect from 01.10.2015 without cumulative effect. Against the
nd
above penalty, the applicant preferred his appeal dated 11.11.2015 to the 2
respondent viz., Director Postal Services, Central Region, Trichirappalli. His appeal
nd
was rejected by the 2 respondent who upheld the penalty imposed by the
Disciplinary authority vide memo No.STC/3-30/2015/TR dated 08.03.2016.
nd
Against the order of the 2 respondent viz., the appellate authority, the applicant
st
preferred his revision petition dated 12.05.2016 to the 1 respondent. After due
st
consideration and observation, his petition was rejected by the 1 respondent by
confirming the order of appellate authority vide memo No.VIG/11-172/2016
dated 01.08.2017. As the inquiry was protracted only by the applicant for more

7 OA 1618/2017
than one year, he was placed under suspension. As the proceedings ended with
imposition of a major penalty, the period of suspension from 12.04.2014 to
27.08.2014 of the applicant was treated as non-duty for all purposes and to
restrict the pay and allowances of the applicant to the amount of subsistence
allowance already paid under FR 54. Hence, there is no violation of principles of
natural justice.
3.5 The respondents further submitted that in SB Order No. 2/2008, it is stated
that, "w.e.f. 15.02.2008, all single/double handed Sub offices, at the time of
closure/ premature closure of RD/MIS/SCSS accounts will collect closed passbook
from the depositor and attach the same with account closure form and send in a
manner as prescribed for dispatch of vouchers and List of Transactions to Head
Office. The applicant himself admitted that he had handed over the passbooks to
the husband of the depositor as requested by him. Thus, he violated the
instructions contained in the SB Order No. 2/2008. The applicant discharged the
payment in contravention of rules on the subject. He should be aware of all SB
orders and rules in force. His act of violation of the instructions issued by the
department had resulted in an irregularity. Further a casual comparison of the
SB-3 cards (Account opening form) with the withdrawal/closure forms reveals a
great difference in the signature of the depositor. But the applicant affixed his
signature blindly without verifying the difference in signature of the depositor
which has been established substantially. As such the penalty imposed upon the
applicant is commensurate with the gravity of the proven charges. Hence, they
prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. The applicant has also filed a rejoinder, reiterating the averments made in
the OA.
4.1 The applicant submitted that the 3rd respondent, with a prejudiced mind,
split the single Rule-16 allegation into three articles so as to make it as grave
misconduct and issued the Rule 14 charge sheet dated 23.04.2013 to the

8 OA 1618/2017
applicant. The allegations made against him in the Rule-14 charge sheet do not
attract to initiate Rule-14 inquiry. He further contended that there is no loss to
the department and he has not misappropriated the funds of the department or
the depositors and there is no complaint by the depositor. In fact, he has handed
over the amount to the husband of the depositor, but the 3rd respondent more
conveniently named him as Messenger to the depositor. The depositions (A-25 &
A-26) of her husband are the evidences that the applicant has paid the amount
as requested by the depositor to her husband.
4.2 The deposition of the depositor's husband given during regular inquiry was
not to taken into account by the IO as well as the 3rd respondent. This fact has
not been seriously gone into by the appellate as well as reviewing authority. The
depositor's husband admitted the fact that as advised by his wife he has
withdrawn the amount by producing the duly signed withdrawal slip of his wife.
4.3 As per the prevailing practice in the HO and by following the provisions of
Rule 43 (6) of POSB Vol.1, the applicant has handed over the pass books to the
husband of the depositor i.e., so called Messenger as termed by the 3rd
respondent as requested. Imposing multiple punishment on the applicant is
unjustifiable.
5. Heard Mr.R.Malaichamy for the applicant and Mr.M.Kishore Kumar, learned
standing counsel for the respondents and perused the material placed on record
and scrutinized the whole conspectus of the case.
6. The applicant worked as Sub Post Master Vadapathimangalam SO during
the period from 22.06.2009 to 30.04.2013. While working as such he credited
the maturity value of MIS accounts no.580043, 580044, 580051, 580052 and
580053 into SB account no.376068 standing in the name of Smt. K.Thulasibai
on 20.09.2011 and he paid a sum of Rs. 1,98,500/- from that S.B. account to the
messenger Shri.K.Kaliyamoorthy, on the same day. The same was reported to
rd
the 3 respondent, vide objection memo no.233 dated 24.09.2011 by the

9 OA 1618/2017
Postmaster, Mannargudi HO. Accordingly, explanation of the applicant was called
rd
for vide 3 respondent letter dated 22.11.2011. The explanation letter
No:SB/OM/VPM/NG dated 26.11.2011 was submitted by the applicant.
7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that MIS
accounts no. 580043, 580044, 580051, 580052 and 580053 standing in the name
of Smt. K.Thulasibai has been closed by the depositor on 20.09.2011 and the
maturity of Rs.1,98,500/- deposited into SB account no:376068 was withdrawn
on 20.09.2011 itself through her husband Sri K.Kaliamurthy as messenger, which
is in violation of instructions contained in the SB Order No:16/2008. Thus, the
applicant violated the standard procedure as laid down in the SB Order
No:16/2008.
8. The applicant was initially charge-sheeted on 09.04.2012 under Rule 16 of
the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 with one article of charge which was later dropped
without prejudice to any further action, vide memo dated 30.03.2013.
Subsequently, fresh charge sheet was issued, vide memo no: F1/Misc/02/12-13
dated 23.04.2013 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 with three articles
of charge. The applicant violated the SB Orders and rules and discharged the
payment in contravention of rules on the subject. Further, without comparing the
SB-3 cards (Account opening form) with the withdrawal/closure forms which
revealed a great difference in the signature of the depositor, the applicant affixed
his signature blindly without verifying the difference in signature of the depositor
which has been established substantially. As the charges against the applicant
were proved during the departmental inquiry, a minor penalty of reduction of pay
in Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200 + G.P. of Rs.2400 by two stages from Rs.9300+
G.P. of Rs.2400/- to Rs.8630/- +GP. Rs.2400/- for a period of two years with
effect from 01.10.2015 without cumulative effect has been awarded to the
applicant. The applicant also pleaded ignorance that he was not aware of the
rules in this regard. It has been established that violation of the standard

10 OA 1618/2017
procedure as per the SB Order No:16/2008 has been committed. Also, not
reporting immediately to the higher authorities as per prescribed procedure is
also violative of the established norms. Affixing signature without verifying the
signature of the account holder and not forwarding the closed MIS passbooks is
violation of established norms committed by the applicant. In the result, the
applicant has not made out a case for judicial intervention. The OA, being devoid
of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.


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

MT 20.08.2026

THANGAM M
Digitally signed by THANGAM M
Date: 2026.09.02 10:10:33 +05'30'