S. MANIKUMAR, J.

Challenge in this writ petition is to an order made in O.A.No.202 of 2012 dated 9.9.2015, by which, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, has declined to quash the charge memorandum dated 7.2.2011 and the order of suspension dated 28.1.2009.

2. Facts leading to the writ petition are that the petitioner, a Postal Assistant, was placed under suspension on 28.1.2009 by the Superintendent, Dindigul Division, Dindigul. She was served with charge memorandum dated 7.2.2011, which contained three articles of charges. The first article relates to her negligence in preparing the payment order, in respect of part withdrawal in Recurring Deposit A/c No.262804. The second article relates to her failure in noting the name of the officials to whom payments were effected in respect of various transactions in the Treasury's Cash Book. The third article relates to her failure to obtain the initials of the Sub Postmaster before giving cash to the officials on each occasion in Treasury's Cash Book in token of authorisation of such payment.

3. Material on record discloses that in response to the charge memorandum dated 7.2.2011, the petitioner has submitted her statement of defence on 17.2.2011. A preliminary sitting was held on 30.2.2011. She submitted her representation dated 21.6.2011 to the Director of Postal Services, office of the Postmaster General, the second respondent herein, for cancellation of the charge memo stating that the same is defective. Her representation came to be disposed of on 30.9.2011. She further submitted a petition dated 17.9.2011 alleging bias against the Enquiry Officer. The said petition was rejected on 26.12.2011. Thereafter, she submitted an appeal to the Postmaster General, the first respondent herein, on 30.12.2011. It was rejected on 9.12.2013. Subsequently, there was a change of Enquiry Officer.

4. Once again, the petitioner submitted another petition dated 2.12.2014 alleging bias. The said petition was rejected. Thereafter, she filed an appeal dated 23.2.2015. In the above background, the petitioner filed O.A.No.202/2012, to call for the records of the Ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority and Senior Superintendent, RMS "MA" Division, Madurai, the third respondent herein, to quash the charge memorandum in No.SSRM/ADA-4/2010 dated 7.2.2011 and the order of suspension issued by the 4th respondent in memo No.F1/9/08-09 dated 28.1.2009 and to set aside, the same and consequently prayed for a direction to the respondents therein to reinstate her, in service with all attendant benefits.

5. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner, has contended that she has been wantonly implicated in the disciplinary proceedings. The charge memorandum contained an expression of guilt of the petitioner and therefore, it is predetermined. Different charges have been clubbed. There is no documentary evidence in support of the allegations leveled against the petitioner. Relying on the statements of others, who had committed fraud, writ petitioner, who is a witness in the criminal case, has been charge-sheeted and that the same is not permissible. Statement of imputations, furnished along with the charge memorandum, dated 7.2.2011, are extraneous to the charge memorandum.

6. Reading of the order impugned before us shows that in O.A.No.202/2012, the Tribunal has issued notice on admission, and the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, wherein, they have contended that a major fraud has been committed in Vedasandhur Sub Post office, Dindigul HPO, Dindigul Division in respect of recurring deposits, to the tune of Rs.1,44,27,844/-. The respondents have contended that during the period between May 2008 and 28.01.2009, the writ petitioner was working as a Treasurer in Vedasanthur Sub Post Office. They have also contended that verification of the records disclosed that the writ petitioner had assisted one Shri. G. Varadh