ORDER

Hon'ble Mr. P. Madhavan, Judicial Member – This is an Original Application filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) To call for the records leading to Annexures A1 to A4 and set aside A1, A2, A3 and A4 orders;

(ii) To declare that the applicant herein is entitled to be reinstated in service with all attendant benefits;

(iii) To issue appropriate direction or order which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit, just and proper in the circumstance of the case;

And (iv) To award costs to the applicant.”

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

The applicant’s case is that she entered the service of Postal Department as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA) and thereafter she was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster (EDBPM) at Vettekad BO under Ottapalam Division. Now the said post is re-designated as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (GDSBPM). While working so, the respondents had placed her under put off duty with effect from 20.11.2010. According to her she was thereafter served with a memo of charges dated 30.6.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent. The applicant submitted a representation on 8.8.2011 to the 2nd respondent denying all charges leveled against her. According to her, the working hours at Vettekad Branch Office (BO) is for four hours. While she was working on 17.11.2010, the cash balance in hand at the closing of working hours was Rs. 15,104.50 paisa. As the Branch Postmaster (BPM) is required to keep the cash at her home after the closing hours of the BO, she kept the cash balance of the BO in her hand bag and kept the bag in her home for safe custody.

Her husband is not living along with her for long time but her son an unemployed youth and student was living with her. On the next day morning she went to the BO for duty with her hand bag. In the morning on 18.11.2020, the Mail Overseer came to the BO for checking. The applicant unknowingly tendered the handbag and office cash and stamp box to him for checking. There was a loss of Rs. 15,000/- in the bag. The applicant was not aware of the shortage or loss of amount from the bag at that time. She had no reason to suspect that the cash kept in the handbag would ever be taken away by any one at her home. Since the money was not found she has owed the responsibility for shortage of fund. The Mail Overseer was requested to permit her to go to her house for searching the money, but it was not permitted. In the alternative she suggested that she has a personal SB account at Vettekara BO and it was having more than Rs. 15,000/- in it. She also sought permission to withdraw the amount and pay the same in the shortage. The Mail Overseer telephoned the Inspector of Posts, Mannarkkad Sub Division and informed him about the shortage of cash. The applicant was detained in the office till the Inspector came. The Inspector also asked her to make good the deficiency of cash immediately without going to her house. She was permitted to withdraw the cash from her personal account and she remitted the amount of Rs. 15,000/- which was the shortage. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent ordered to completely verify the earlier transactions done by the applicant during her entire service as GDSBPM.

The Inspector of Posts and his team verified the transactions and could not bring out any serious irregularity except the above mentioned deficiency of cash and a stray instance of casual inadvertence of non-accounting of Rs.

100/- in the accounts on 24.3.2010 and another solitary instance of mistake in the totaling of RPLI premium in a RPLI passbook for an amount of Rs.

190/-. A charge memo was issued to the applicant which is produced as Annexure A5. Later, she came to understand that her son had actually taken the amount from her bag without her notice and left the State. It was not with her knowledge. During the inquiry, the senior officers of the Postal Department in the Division had advised her to plead guilty to the charg