CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA/310/00636/2014 Dated the 7^th day of February Two Thousand Twenty Four CORAM : HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J)

HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, Member (A)

K.Govindan, S/o. A. Kuppan, No. 376, Old Colony, Kilpaliyapattu BO a/w Pachal SO, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. Pin 606704. ….Applicant By Advocate M/s. R. Malaichamy Vs

1.Union of India, rep by the Postmaster General, Chennai City Region, Anna Salai, Chennai 600002.

2.Superintendent of Post Offices, Tiruvannamalai Division, Tiruvannamalai 606601.

3.Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (OD) &

Ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority, O/o the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tiruvannamalai Division, Tiruvannamalai 606601. ….Respondents By Advocate Mr. S. Nagarajan

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member(A))

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-

“1. To call for the records of the 2^nd respondent pertaining to his show cause notice made in No. F6/III-1/11-12 and the order of removing the Applicant from engagement made in No. F6//III-1/11-12 dated 25.09.2013 and the order of 1^st Respondent made in memo No. VIG/Pet/1-19/2013/CCR dated 01.01.2014 and set aside the same, consequent to

2. Direct the respondents to reinstate the Applicant into service with all service benefits and

3. To pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The applicant has stated his case as follows :-

i. While the Applicant was working as GDS MD/MC, Kilpaliyapattu BO, the 3 Respondent issued a charge sheet, dated 16.11.2011, under Rule 10 of the GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011, to him. He denied the charges levelled against him, vide his reply, dated 24.11.2011. He became a scapegoat on the foul play played by some miscreants in his village on their usual inducement. All these occurrences were happened by a few personal vendetta and nothing else other than that. In the regular inquiry all the state witnesses not only disowned the contents in the statements alleged to be obtained from them but also deposed in the inquiry against the charge framed against the Applicant. But, the Inquiry Officer held the charges as proved, based on the preliminary investigation report. He has conducted the inquiry in total violation of the principles of natural justice.

ii. According to the Applicant, the 3rd Respondent, on considering the inquiry report and the reply of the Applicant, imposed the punishment of debarring the Applicant from appearing in the recruitment examination for the post of Multi Tasking Group -C and Postman for a period of 3 years, by an order, dated 30.04.2013. But, the 2nd Respondent, suo motu, reviewed the order of punishment, dated 30.04.2013, imposed by the 2nd Respondent, under Rule 19 (1) of the GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011, by issuing a show cause notice, dated 01.08.2013. In his show cause notice, he has stated that the Applicant is not a fit person to be retained in the department. He further stated in his notice that he proposed to enhance the penalty to that of removal from engagement. As decided by him already, the Applicant was removed from engagement, by an order, dated 25.09.2013. It was confirmed by the 1^st Respondent, by an order, dated 01.01.2014. It is alleged by the applicant that the 2^nd Respondent had already made up his mind to remove the Applicant from engagement. Hence, his notice, dated 01.08.2013, and his order, dated 25.09.2013, and the order of the 1^st Respondent, dated 01.01.2014, are liable to be set aside by this Tribunal.

iii. Another submission made by the Applicant is that imposing major punishment of removal from engagement on the Applicant is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.

3.i. From the facts of the case, as given by the applicant, it is seen that while he was working as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer /Mail Carrier (GDS MD/MC), Kilpaliyapattu BO a/w Pachal SO, the 3^rd Responden