CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00237/2023 DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 CORAM:

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

Chandru, Age: 35 years, S/o Javaregowda, Ex GDS BPM, H-Kothanur BO, A/w Kanakapura At Channapatna Postal Dn, Residing at:

11^th Cross, Leelavati Baavane, Maddur Town, Ward No. 4, Maddur 571 428 .... Applicant (By Shri P Kamalesan, Advocate)

Vs.

1. Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi 110 056

2. Chief Post Master General, Karnataka Circle, Bengaluru 560 001

3. Director of Postal Services, O/O Post Master General, HQ Region, Bangalore 560 001

4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Channapatna Division, Channapatna 562 160

5. Post Master General, Bangalore HQ, Region, Bangalore 560 001 … Respondents (By Shri S. Prakash Shetty, Senior Panel Counsel – through vide conference)

O R D E R (ORAL)

PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Quash the Superintendent of Post Offices, Channapatna Dn, Channapatna letter No. F/4-2/18-19 dated: 16-8-2021 vide Annexure-A7 issued by Respondent No. 4.

(ii) Quash O/O Post Master General, Bangalore Hq Region, Bangalore 560 001 letter No. BGR/VIG/10-2/2021 dated:

21.02.2022 vide Annexure-A9 issued by Respondent No. 3.

(iii) Quash O/O Post Master General, Bangalore HQ Region, Bangalore 560 001 letter No. BGR/VIG/10-3/C/2022 dated:

07-07-2022 vide Annexure-A11 issued by Respondent No. 5 (iv) Grant any other relief as deemed fit taking into consideration of facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Facts in brief as stated by the applicant are that the applicant who was working as GDS BPM at H. Kothanur BO account with Kanakapura SO from 27.02.2012 was kept under put off duty from 16.11.2018. Thereafter, The Superintendent of Post Offices, Channapatna issued a Charge Memorandum dated 05.02.2021 under Rule 10B of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, which contained one Article of Charge. The applicant admitted the charge, pursuant to which, the Inquiry Officer finalized the inquiry on the same day and submitted a report stating that the charges levelled against the applicant are proved. Based on the Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of “removal from service” with effect from 16.08.2021. Being aggrieved, the applicant submitted an appeal before the Appellate Authority which came to be rejected vide order dated 21.02.2022. Thereafter, the applicant preferred a Revision Petition unsuccessfully. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA. 3. Learned counsel Shri P. Kamalesan representing the applicant submitted the sole charge alleged, though was admitted by the applicant as a mistake, the said amount of Rs. 25,000/- was immediately credited by the applicant. There was no such incidents during his entire service from 27.02.2012 to 16.08.2021, during 9 years of service, as could be seen from his past verification work carried by the respondents. The applicant has not committed any fraud/misconduct and he had no such intention. The applicant was helping the GDS MD who was not able to undertake delivery work and she used to help the applicant in posting pay slip into BO account but unfortunately, on 19.10.2018, due to pressure of work, the said GDS MD failed to post the pay slip into BO account. The Disciplinary Authority, based on solitary incident, imposed the grave penalty of removal which is disproportionate to the alleged offence. The Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority mechanically followed the Disciplinary Authority’s order and rejected the appeal and revision. Thus, the learned counsel seeks for interference of this Tribunal.

4. Detailed reply statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Referring to the reply statement, learned counsel Shri S. P