CAT Upholds Postal Worker’s Removal After Two Rs500 Money Orders Were Marked Paid Without Reaching the Payee

The applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer, was placed off duty following a complaint that he had recorded two money orders as paid without delivering the amounts to the payee.

After an inquiry found the charge proved, the disciplinary authority removed him from engagement on 10 April 2015; his revision petition was rejected on 2 May 2016.

He challenged the inquiry and the penalty, alleging delay, inadequate opportunity to defend himself, and procedural defects, including denial of an opportunity to cross-examine the payee and to submit a defence statement.

The respondents maintained that the inquiry was fair and that the applicant had been afforded reasonable opportunities.

The applicant’s disciplinary proceedings were conducted under Rule 10 of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, and the alleged misconduct concerned the duty to maintain integrity and devotion to duty under Rule 21.

The Tribunal observed that the CCS (CCA) Rules need not be applied literally to GDS employees, who are governed by their own rules, but that their procedural safeguards should be followed in spirit; under Rule 14(16) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, a charged employee is to be called upon to state a defence after the disciplinary authority’s case closes.

Relying on Parma Nanda v. State of Haryana, the Tribunal stated that it cannot substitute an appellate assessment for the disciplinary authority’s findings where those findings are not arbitrary or utterly perverse.

It also relied on Regional Manager, UPSRTC v. Hoti Lal for the principle that misconduct involving public money or a fiduciary role calls for a high standard of integrity and may not warrant leniency.

The Tribunal found that the payee identified the complaint and testified that he had not received the money-order amounts, supporting the inquiry officer’s finding that the charge was proved.

It rejected the claim that the applicant had been denied cross-examination because the applicant’s chosen assisting government servant attended the relevant sitting, the witness was available for questioning, and the applicant had been notified of the hearing.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant had been invited to indicate whether he wished to be examined or submit a defence, and that reasonable opportunities—including a change of venue—had been provided.

Although the proceedings were prolonged, it accepted the respondents’ explanation that investigation of the monetary transactions required verification and found no demonstrated prejudice to the applicant’s defence; it treated the ex-gratia grievance as a separate matter.

The findings were neither arbitrary nor perverse, and the misconduct involved public money, so the Tribunal found no basis to interfere with the penalty.

It dismissed the Original Application, leaving the removal order and the revisional decision undisturbed, with no order as to costs.