ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Mr.B.V.Sudhakar, Administrative Member)

Through Video Conferencing:

2. The OA is filed challenging the penalty of removal from service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Branch Post Master of Medipur B.O. on 6.8.1995 and was put off duty on 17.10.2010 for alleged non delivery of Regd/Speed post articles and shortage of cash. Applicant was charged under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011 on 14.5.2013 and the inquiry officer has held the two charges framed as not proved. Disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the I.O and imposed the penalty of removal on 21.7.2014 after following the due procedure. Appeal was made on 4.8.2014 and before the appeal could be decided, the 4th respondent issued notice to fill up the post of Medipur B.O. Aggrieved, OA is filed.

4. The contentions of the applicant are that the I.O has held both the charges as not proved. The disagreement note of the disciplinary authority is not based on evidence. The Disciplinary authority has not applied his mind while imposing the penalty, which is too harsh.

5. Respondents in the reply statement state that the applicant has admitted in his statement dated 26.6.2010 about the shortage of cash of Rs.30,000/- and voluntarily credited the amount into the govt. accounts. The prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and hence, the charges could not be proved. The Disciplinary authority has given sufficient reasons for disagreeing with the I.O. report and after due consideration of the various facts the penalty of removal was imposed.

6. Heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings on record.

7. I. The applicant was proceeded under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules by framing the following charges:

“ARTICLE – I That Sri P. Maheshwar, while working as GDS BPM, Medipur BO A/W Nagarkumool SO failed to deliver the following Registered / Speed Post Letters received from the account Office to the addressees as required of him under Rule - 8l of Book of Rules for Branch Offices (Eighth Edition, corrected upto 28thSeptember, 2007)

Sl. No.	Rl. No.	Office of Booking	Addressed to	Remarks
1	2664/14-6-2010	Wanaparthy	Gunti Venkatamma Wo Gunti Venkataiah, R/o Allapur Village	Delivered by MO on 13.07.2010
2.	2679/14-6-2010	Wanaparthy	Gunti Laxmamma, W/o.Anjaneyulu, R/o Allapur Village	Delivered by MO on 13-07-2010
3.	2681/14-6-2010	Wanaparthy	Gunti Krishnamma, W/o. Niranjan, R/o Allapur village	Delivered by MO on l3-07-2010
4.	EA812553649IN	New Delhi	D. Narender Reddy, S/o .Bal Reddy, R/o. Akunellikuduru village	Delivered by MO on 15-07-2010
5.	ET435377615IN	Chennai-2	J. Bhaskar Reddy S/o J. Krishna Reddy, R/o Akunellikuduru Village	Delivered by MO on 15-07-2010

It is, therefore, alleged that the said Sri P. Maheshwar contravened the provisions of Rule - 86 of Chapter - V of Rules for Branch Offices, Eighth Edition, corrected up to 28th September, 2007 and, thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required in Rule 21 of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.

ARTICLE II That Sri P. Maheshwar while working as GDS BPM, Medipur BO a/w Nagarkumool S.O., kept Shortage of cash Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousand Only) in cash balances of Medipur BO (The IP, Nagarkumool sub division visited Medipur BO A/W Nagarkumool SO on 26-06-2010 and verified the cash and stamp balances of the BO and found shortage of Rs.30,0001) as against the balances of cash Rs.50841-50.

It is therefore, alleged that the said Sri P. Maheshwar contravened the provisions of Note below Rule-11 of Chapter - I of Rules for Branch Offices, Eighth Edition corrected up to 28th September 2007 and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required in Rule 21 of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 201 l.”

The inquiry officer has held both the charges as not proved and his conclusions in regard to both the cha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document