(Reserved on 26.09.2024)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR Original Application No.200/782/2014 Jabalpur, this Wednesday, the 06^th day of November, 2024 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Laxmi Narayan Mahato, S/o Shri Jhagru Ram Mahato, Date of Birth – 1.3.1961, R/o Sector 1, Street No.4, Professor Colony, Raipur – 492001 (C.G.) -Applicant Advocate for the applicant: Shri Akash Choudhury V E R S U S

1. Union of In India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Communication &

IT, Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Bhawan, New Delhi –

110001.

2. Chief Post Master General, Chhattisgarh Circle, Raipur 492001 (C.G.).

3. Director Postal Services, O/o Chief Post Master General, Chhattisgarh Circle, Raipur 492001 (C.G.).

4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Durg Division, Civic Center, Bhili, District – Durg 491001 (C.G.) -Respondents Advocate for the respondents: Shri Manish Chourasia O R D E R By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-

The applicant is challenging the chargesheet dated 26.02.2013 (Annexure A-1) issue under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred as ‘1965 Rules’ for brevity); orders of the Disciplinary Authority dated 14.05.2013 (Annexure A-2) and the Appellate Authority dated 21.08.2014 (Annexure A-3).

2. The applicant has stated in his Original Application that he was initially appointed on the post of Postal Assistant on 10.12.1983 and subsequently promoted as Inspector on 27.07.1995. The applicant was served with a minor penalty chargesheet dated 26.02.2013 (Annexure A-1) under Rule 16 of 1965 Rules. The applicant states that the allegations in the chargesheet pertains to the period of 2004-05 when he was posted as Sub Divisional Inspector, Baloda Bazar. The crux of the charge against the applicant is of negligence of duty and it has been alleged that due to negligence of the applicant, one Extra Departmental Agent got an opportunity to commit fraud. The applicant replied to the chargesheet on 13.03.2013 (Annexure A-3). However, the Disciplinary Authority without considering the defence of the applicant, inflicted the punishment of withholding of next increment for a period of three years with non-cumulative effect and further ordered for recovery of an amount of Rs.43,657/- from the applicant in 21 equal installments of Rs.2,000/-.

3. The applicant has challenged the chargesheet on the ground that there is a delay of almost eight years in issuance of chargesheet as the incidence for which the charges are framed pertains to the year 2005 while the chargesheet has been issued in the year 2013. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to the representation dated 13.03.2013 (Annexure A-4) filed by the applicant against the chargesheet, wherein the applicant has clearly stated that delay in placing put-off to the EDA was due to shortage of staff. He further brought our attention to the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 14.05.2013 (Annexure A-2) to say that there could be dereliction of duty on the part of the applicant but the same cannot be construed as a misconduct. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon a decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.15423 of 2024 dated 19.07.2024 and contended that in the present case also the charge against the applicant are based on surmises and conjectures and not directly attributable to the applicant.

4. In their counter reply, the respondents have stated that during the period from 27.07.2004 to 04.05.2008 when the applicant was posted as Sub Divisional Inspector, he has inspected Latuva Branch Post Office on 15.09.2005 and found that four money order amounting to Rs.16000/- was disbursed but not received by the receiver. For this irregularity, the applicant has not taken action against the ED employee to place him under put-off duty, which has resulted in further embezzlement of an amount of Rs.2000/-. The permanent and temporar