Disciplinary penalty stands where postal employee’s violations of prescribed savings-account procedures are proved.

The applicant, a Postal Assistant who had served as Sub-Postmaster, Vadapathimangalam SO, credited the maturity proceeds of five MIS accounts, totalling ₹1,98,500, into the SB account of the depositor, Smt. K. Thulasibai, and paid the amount to her husband, Shri K. Kaliyamoorthy, described by the Department as a messenger, on 20 September 2011.

He also handed over the closed MIS passbooks to him instead of forwarding them to the Head Office.

The Department initially issued a charge memorandum under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, alleging irregular payment and non-forwarding of the passbooks.

That proceeding was withdrawn without prejudice to further action, and a fresh charge-sheet under Rule 14 was issued containing three charges: permitting withdrawal by the messenger without verifying the depositor’s signature, failing to verify the signatures on the relevant forms, and failing to forward the closed MIS passbooks.

Following a departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer held all three charges proved.

The Disciplinary Authority imposed reduction of pay by two stages for two years without cumulative effect.

The applicant’s appeal and revision were rejected.

He was also suspended from 12 April 2014 to 27 August 2014, and that period was treated as non-duty, with pay and allowances restricted to the subsistence allowance already paid.

Whether the departmental authorities lawfully initiated a fresh Rule 14 inquiry after withdrawing the earlier Rule 16 charge-sheet on the same underlying incident.

Whether the applicant’s payment of ₹1,98,500 to the depositor’s husband, failure to verify the depositor’s signatures, and failure to forward the closed MIS passbooks constituted violation of applicable postal savings instructions.

Whether the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for two years was disproportionate or otherwise warranted judicial interference.

Whether the suspension period from 12 April 2014 to 27 August 2014 was required to be treated as duty with full consequential benefits rather than as non-duty.

The Tribunal applied Rules 14 and 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, governing major- and minor-penalty disciplinary proceedings, and accepted that a Rule 16 proceeding could be withdrawn without prejudice to subsequent action under Rule 14 where the facts warranted a regular inquiry.

It relied on the applicable SB Orders Nos. 2/2008 and 16/2008, which required closed passbooks to be collected from the depositor and forwarded to the Head Office, and required proper verification of the depositor’s signature before permitting payment.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that an employee’s violation of binding departmental procedures constitutes misconduct and that, where charges are proved in a procedurally valid inquiry, the Tribunal ordinarily will not substitute its own assessment of the penalty unless the punishment warrants judicial intervention on grounds of illegality, irrationality or disproportionality.

The treatment of the suspension period was considered in the context of FR 54 and the respondents’ authority to regulate pay and allowances following the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had admitted handing over the closed MIS passbooks to the depositor’s husband and paying him the maturity proceeds.

Those actions directly contravened the prescribed postal savings procedure requiring collection and forwarding of closed passbooks and verification of the depositor’s signature before payment.

The forensic material and departmental evidence were treated as establishing substantial differences between the depositor’s specimen signatures and the signatures appearing on the closure and withdrawal documents; consequently, the applicant’s failure to verify them constituted a procedural lapse.

The applicant’s assertion that the payment was made at the depositor’s request, that her husband was the intended recipient, and that no departmental loss or misappropriation occurred did not excuse non-compliance with mandatory departmental instructions.

The Tribunal accepted the Inquiry Officer’s findings and held that the punishment was commensurate with the proved misconduct.

It also accepted the respondents’ explanation that the inquiry had been prolonged by the applicant and that, since the disciplinary proceedings culminated in punishment, the suspension period could be treated as non-duty and regulated in accordance with the applicable rules.

It upheld the Rule 14 disciplinary proceedings, the findings that the three charges were proved, the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for two years without cumulative effect, and the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities.

It further upheld the treatment of the suspension period from 12 April 2014 to 27 August 2014 as non-duty, with pay and allowances restricted to the subsistence allowance already paid.

The OA was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.