CCS (CCA) Rules: Removal for Recruitment Irregularities Upheld by Central Administrative Tribunal if Procedurally Fair & Misconduct Grave, Even Without Personal Gain - 2025-05-29

Postal Assistant's Removal for GDS Recruitment Irregularities Upheld by CAT

Kolkata: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Kolkata Bench, in a judgment dated May 27, 2025, dismissed an application challenging the removal of a Postal Assistant, Ramapati Barman , from service. The Tribunal, comprising Hon’ble Smt. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member, and Hon’ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das , Administrative Member, found no procedural infirmities or lack of fairness in the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Department of India Post. The removal was based on charges of irregularities committed during the recruitment of Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS).

Case Background

Ramapati Barman , initially appointed as a Postal Assistant in 1990, was officiating as an Inspector of Post Offices (IPOS) in the Contai Sub-Division between 2009 and 2011. During this period, recruitments for GDS posts were conducted. Over four years later, in February 2015, Barman was suspended, and a charge sheet was issued in March 2015, alleging irregularities in these recruitments.

Following an inquiry where the charges were reportedly proven, the Disciplinary Authority (Superintendent of Post Offices, Contai Division) ordered Barman 's removal from service on June 14, 2016. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authority (Director of Postal Services, South Bengal Region) on March 20, 2017, and the Revisionary Authority (Chief Post Master General, West Bengal Circle) on September 5, 2018. Barman approached the CAT seeking to quash these orders and his reinstatement with full back wages.

Applicant's Contentions

Mr. Barman , through his counsel, raised several grounds challenging the disciplinary action:

Denial of Natural Justice: Alleged non-supply or belated supply of crucial documents, denial of opportunity to effectively cross-examine witnesses, and refusal to allow examination of a key defense witness (the then Superintendent of Post Offices, Sri S. L. Baskey ).

Jurisdictional Error: Argued that the Superintendent of Post Offices was not the competent Disciplinary Authority as the charges pertained to his duties as an officiating Inspector, for which the Director of Postal Services should have been the authority.

Lack of Awareness and Training: Claimed that as an officiating Inspector without formal training, he was unaware of certain circulars (like one from 2003 regarding GDS recruitment criteria) and relied on past practices and superior guidance.

No Personal Gain & Disproportionate Punishment: Emphasized that no charges of personal gain or corrupt motive were leveled, making the penalty of removal grossly disproportionate.

Procedural Lapses: Contended that authorities did not apply their minds, and orders were passed with preconceived bias. He also pointed to an alleged inordinate delay in initiating proceedings and the non-obtainment of UPSC's advice.

Respondents' Defence

The Department of India Post countered that:

Procedural Fairness: Asserted that Barman was given adequate opportunities to inspect documents and participate in the inquiry with his defense assistant.

Competent Authority: Stated that the Superintendent of Post Offices was the appropriate Disciplinary Authority for Barman , whose substantive post was Postal Assistant.

Applicant's Responsibility: Argued that Barman , having volunteered for the officiating post, was responsible for being aware of and following recruitment rules and instructions. Ignorance of rules or circulars was not an acceptable defense for irregularities, including alleged entertainment of fake mark sheets and compromising merit.

Gravity of Misconduct: Maintained that the irregularities led to the selection of undeserving candidates, which constituted a grave offence, justifying the penalty of removal. The fate of the irregularly appointed candidates was a separate issue.

UPSC Advice: Not required for a Group C employee.

Tribunal's Analysis and Reasoning

The Tribunal meticulously examined the arguments and evidence, ultimately finding no merit in the applicant's claims.

On Jurisdiction and Procedural Fairness: The CAT affirmed that the Superintendent of Post Offices was the correct Disciplinary Authority, as Barman 's substantive post was Postal Assistant. It noted, "Substantive post held by the applicant when the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him was that of Postal Assistant for whom, admittedly, the Appointing Authority is the Superintendent of Post Offices. It is therefore held that there was no infirmity in the Superintendent of Post Offices acting as the Disciplinary Authority in the case."

The Tribunal found that the Inquiry Officer had recorded reasons for allowing or disallowing documents and witnesses. "Copies of letters issued to the applicant annexed by the respondents in their reply bear testimony to the fact that the applicant was given multiple opportunities to inspect the documents even before the inquiry commenced."

On Applicant's Responsibility and Awareness: The argument of being an untrained officiating Inspector and unaware of rules was dismissed. The Tribunal stated, "He had himself volunteered to officiate in a higher post. He was expected to be aware of the rules on a sensitive subject like recruitment. Since he was wholly responsible for conducting the recruitment, he had to take full responsibility for any irregularity that may have occurred in the process."

On Delay and Application of Mind: The Tribunal found no unreasonable delay in the proceedings. Regarding the claim of non-application of mind by various authorities, the CAT observed, "We have gone through each of those orders and find that due care has been taken by the authorities to consider facts of the case, the charges, applicant’s defence, inquiry report etc., before arriving at their conclusions."

On Scope of Judicial Review: The Tribunal reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, citing precedents like B C Chaturvedi vs UOI . It emphasized that the Tribunal does not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence but reviews the decision-making process for adherence to natural justice, statutory rules, and absence of perversity. The Tribunal quoted: "The court/Tribunal has its power of judicial review but it does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence in its arrival at its own dependent findings on the evidence."

On Proportionality of Punishment: The Tribunal held that the misconduct was grave, justifying the punishment. "It has been proved in the inquiry that the actions of the applicant resulted in appointment of undeserving candidates at the cost of deserving ones. The proven misdemeanor on the part of the applicant, in our opinion, is itself grave and the punishment of removal from service is not disproportionate considering the gravity of the offence."

Final Decision

The Central Administrative Tribunal concluded that there was no procedural lapse or legal infirmity in the decision-making process by the disciplinary, appellate, and revisionary authorities. The reasons provided by these authorities were found to be cogent and clear.

"In the present case, this Tribunal by adhering to the aforesaid settled principles of law is of the opinion that there is no procedural lapse in conducting the departmental enquiry, after granting due opportunity to the Charged Official, the DA and AA came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the applicant stand proved and awarded the punishment in the light of gravity of proved charged against the applicant herein," the order stated.

Consequently, the Original Application (O.A./1812/2018) filed by Ramapati Barman was dismissed as lacking merit, with no order as to costs.