CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this the 12^th day of November, Two Thousand Twenty Four CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER(J)

AND HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)

P. Arumugam, S/o Palani, Vedasandur SO, Now at Nagampatti Colony, Vedasandur, Dindigul District. .. Applicant By Advocate M/s. R. Malaichamy Vs.

1. Union of India rep by Director of Postal Services, O/o Postmaster General, Southern Region (TN)

Madurai .

2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul Division, Dindigul.

3. Inspector of Post Offices & ADA, Natham Sub – Division, Natham.

4. Sub Postmaster, Vedasandur LSG-SO .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. G. Dhamodaran

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

rd (i) “To call for the records of the 3 respondent pertaining to his order made in Memo No. ADA/01/2010-11, dated 27.10.2014 & the order of nd

2 respondent made in Memo No. F/Appeal/P.Arumugam/dlgs, dated 19.02.2015 and set aside the same, consequent to (ii Direct the respondents to re-instate the applicant in to service with all benefits and (iii) To pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper”.

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows: The applicant was put off duty by the 4th respondent on 02.01. 2009, with disciplinary proceedings required to be completed within 45 days. However, the inquiry was not finalized, and no charge sheet was issued. Consequently, the applicant filed OA No. 1067 of 2009, wherein a direction was given by the Tribunal, vide its order, dated 20.08.2010 to reinstate him in service with liberty to the respondents to proceed with the disciplinary action. Pursuant to the same, the applicant was reinstated into service by an order, dated 20.08 2010, but the period of put off duty was classified as non-duty, resulting in no back wages. Following reinstatement, the applicant requested payment of bonus for the period

2008-2009, TRCA for two days i.e., 1^st and 2^nd January 2009, and VI Central Pay cCommission arrears from 01.01.2006, to 31.12 2008. Despite repeated requests, these payments were not made. The applicant later filed a complaint against the SPM, alleging he was coerced into stamping passbooks improperly. He further sugmits that on 18.01.2011, he received a charge sheet claiming he had incorrectly stamped documents while working as GDS MP Vedasandut LSG SO during the period from November 2007 to November, 2008. He requested access to the relevant documents but was denied. The applicant denied the charges, but on 25.02 2011, he was again placed off duty. In October 2012, he requested additional documents, but the Inquiry oOfficer reported the charges as proved without providing the requested materials. The applicant submitted a detailed response on 27.08. 2014, but was ultimately removed from engagement on 27.10.2014. This removal was seen as a double punishment, first before the charge sheet and again after issuing the charge sheet.. His appeal against this decision was rejected on 19.02.2015. Hence the present OA.

3. The applicant's counsel argued that, in a letter dated 28.01.2011, the applicant requested the 3rd respondent to provide the documents listed in Annexure-III of the charge memo, dated 18.01. 2011, as these were not supplied. This lack of documentation hindered the applicant's ability to submit an adequate written defense. The counsel further pointed out that the Inquiry Officer admitted that the original RD Pass Book No. 502036, belonging to R. Venkatesan, was in the custody of the CBI in Chennai. This indicates that the inquiry was conducted without the essential original documents relied upon by the respondents. Consequently, the removal of the applicant from service is deemed arbitrary, illegal, and a violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. The counsel further argued that the entire departmental staff and MPKBY agen