ORDER

The applicant has filed the present OA praying for the following reliefs:-

(a) That the impugned order Memo No.C.R./10-

1/Disc/Karampal Singh/16-17 dated 23.11.2016 may kindly be declared illegal unjust and improper and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(b) That the impugned order Memo No. Viz/SR/44-

06(16)/17 dated 15.2.2017 may kindly be declared illegal unjust and improper and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(c) That any other direction, or orders may be passed in favour of the applicant, which may be deemed just and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice.

(d) That the costs of this application may awarded to the applicant.

2. It is the case of the applicant that he was appointed as Postman on 11.6.2016 and while he was posted at Dungarpur City Post Office, he was served a chargesheet on 16.08.2016 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It was alleged in the chargesheet that a passport in favour of Shri Kausar Ali was not delivered to the exact person and it was delivered to Shri Abdul Gani. The second charge was that the applicant demanded Rs. 100/- through Shri Abdul Gani for delivery of the passport. The applicant stated that he was newly appointed and the passport was to be delivered on the same day and as Shri Kausar Ali was not traceable and on confirming from the previous postman he delivered it to Shri Adbul Gani who was relative of Shri Kausar Ali, and who assured to hand over the passport to Shri Kausar Ali. The applicant did not demand Rs. 100/-

from Shri Kausar Ali because the passport was not delivered to him. The said amount was demanded by Shri Abdul Gani, who received the passport. The respondents admitted that the applicant did not demand the money but it was received through Abdul Gani, which is evident from the chargesheet. The Disciplinary Authority without taking into consideration the real facts and circumstance, awarded a punishment of withholding of increment for three years without cumulative effect. The Disciplinary Authority did not consider that the applicant is newly appointed and delivered the passport to known person of Shri Kausar Ali, who was his relative as confirmed by the competent authority during the investigation. The Disciplinary Authority admitted that the applicant did not demand money from Shri Kausar Ali but the amount was demanded by Shri Abdul Gani, who received the passport for giving it to the real person, Shri Kausar Ali. The applicant further averred that the speed post article was delivered on 14.7.2016 and intention of the applicant was to deliver the speed post item on the same date. It is also clear that neither the chargesheet nor the punishment order reveals that the applicant demanded any amount from Shri Kausar Ali. It is also to be noted that the respondents have also admitted that the Speed Post was delivered to Shri Abdul Gani who did not pay any amount to the applicant. Therefore, if the amount is not received by the applicant then the punishment order is clearly illegal and therefore, holding of increments for three years is very harsh. The applicant also filed appeal against the punishment order, but the Appellate Authority affirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the applicant has filed the present OA praying for quashing the order dated 23.11.2016 (Ann.A/1) as well as the order dated 15.2.2017 (Ann.A/2).

3. The respondents have filed reply stating that on receipt of the complaint in the matter pertaining to handing over the parcel/passport to Shri Abdul Gani instead of Shri Kausar Ali, an inquiry was conducted through IPO (PG), Dungarpur and in the inquiry it was revealed that a Speed Post article No. PP876071370IN was received from Passport Office, Jaipur at Dungarpur HO on 14.7.2016 for delivery in the name of Shri Kausar Ali Bohra, but the same was not delivered to him and it was wrongly delivered to the person named Shri Abdul Gani on 14