Disciplinary actions require fair inquiry, but admissions of guilt by the applicant limit successful appeals against penalties imposed.

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member)

Heard Mrs. Rachna Kumari, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M Venkata Swamy, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By this Original Application the applicant is seeking the following relief(s) :

“(a) to call for the records pertaining to the (i) Impugned Order No.F4-5/2012- 13/SAJB dated 09.07.2015 imposing penalty of recovery of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which amount was already recovered from the GDS/BPM, Regadipally being primary offender in the frauds committed by him, and the rejection of Appeal dated 21.11.2015 made to 3rd Respondent which was rejected by the 3rd Respondent vide his Memo No.ST-IV/13/30/2015 dated 30.12.2015 confirming the penalty imposed by the 4th Respondent, on the basis of perfunctory inquiry concluded on the basis of alleged admission of guilt without considering and examining the evidence available without providing opportunity to the applicant to establish his innocence in the enquiry, conducting Inquiry under Rule 14 Charge Memo which is defective in respect of allegations of charges, and set aside the same, declaring as arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted, misconceived and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;

with all the consequential benefits;

and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as under:

The applicant was initially appointed as Postal Assistant under Direct Recruitment upon his discharge from Army Medical Corps. He was posted to work as a Postal Assistant, Podili Sub-Post Office with effect from 15.07.2010. While so, the Govt. of India introduced a scheme known as NREGS (National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme), and the applicant was deputed to work on deputation as Sub-Postmaster, Konkanametla Sub-Office, with effect from 26.08.2011. When the Field Officer submits his indent to the Branch Post Office at the lower level, the Branch Postmaster dispatches the indent to the concerned Sub-Post Office and receives the cash for onward payment to the authorized Supervisors/Field Officers. On receipt of the indents, the applicant, having verified the details with the field supervisor's certification, etc., issued the following pay order Nos. for payment of the same to the wage earners as certified by the field Supervisor and Mandal Development Officer. On subsequent dates one of the field Supervisors in collusion with the GDS/Branch Postmaster, Regadipalli, obtained further indent for the like amounts and got issued the indent. As the sanctioning authority had sanctioned and issued the indent, as prescribed, the applicant had issued the pay orders for the said indent and forwarded them to the GDS/Branch postmaster, Regadipalli B.O., for onward payment to the wage earners under the supervision of Field Supervisors as per the instructions of the Mandal Development Officer. Surprisingly, the 4th Respondent issued a Charge Memo bearing No.F4-5/2012-13/SAJB dated 19.07.2015 alleging that one Sri B. David, GDS/Branch Postmaster, Regadipally B.O., had charged an amount of Rs. 3,08,576/- second time on 18.09.2012 and 09.10.2012 respectively, in respect of three payment orders bearing No. 1200616, 1200767, 1200772 and misappropriated the said amount for his personal expenses. Thus, the applicant enabled the Branch Postmaster, Regadipally B.O. to misappropriate Govt. money. He further submits that the officials functioning in their duties act as per the instructions and as authorized and in that vi