The Tribunal upheld the disciplinary action against the applicant, emphasizing that the penalty of removal from service was justified based on sufficient evidence of misconduct and adherence to procedural fairness.

ORDER 

PER: HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

“.... to call for the records pertaining to the punishment Order No.F4-2/12-13, dated 29.12.2014 (A-III) issued on the basis of inquiry report, dated 13.11.2014 (A-II), submitted in pursuance of charge memo No.F4-2/12-13, dtd.29.11.2012(A-I) issued by the 3^rd Respondent and confirmed by the 2^nd Respondent by Memo No.PMG(H)/ST/21-4/16/BR/PDP/15, dated 12.10.2015 (A-IV) and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the rules and principles of natural justice and in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, set-aside and quash the said disproportionate and illegal penalty of removal from service with consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:

i. The Applicant is challenging the punishment of removal from service awarded by the 3^rd Respondent/Supdt. of Post Offices/Disc.Authority (D.A. for short), through memo No.F4-02/12-13, dt.29.12.2014, on the basis of the report, dt.13.11.2014, submitted by the 4^th Respondent/Inquiry Officer, after conducting inquiry into the charges framed against him, vide memo No.F4-02/12-13, dt.29.11.2012, and confirmed by the 2^nd Respondent/Director of Postal Services/Appellate Authority (A.A. for short), vide memo No.PMG(H)/ST/21-4/16/BR/PDP/15, dt.12.10.2015.

ii. It is submitted that the applicant, while working as officiating BPM/PA, Godavarikhani SO, in Peddapalli Division, had allegedly committed financial irregularities, for which a charge memo, under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, was issued by the 3^rd Respondent/D.A. The 4^th Respondent/Inquiry Officer, after completing the inquiry, submitted his report, dt.13.11.2014, holding all the charges as proved. According to the applicant, there was no evidence to substantiate the charges. The 3^rd Respondent, without considering the submissions made by the applicant, awarded the penalty of removal from service, vide memo No.F4-02/12-13, dt.29.12.2014. Aggrieved by this disproportionate penalty, the applicant preferred an appeal, dt.09.02.2015, to the 2^nd Respondent/A.A. who rejected the same and confirmed the penalty awarded by the 3^rd Respondent.

iii. It is also submitted that the applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant, w.e.f. 17.12.1979, in the Peddapalli Division of Karimnagar District and had rendered 35 years of unblemished service. He performed his duties to the satisfaction of the public as well as the authorities. He was granted three financial upgradations, under the MACP Scheme, on the basis of his good record. During the relevant period, the applicant was the lone PA working in the Sub-Office, although Godavarikhani is a heavy office with the following running accounts:

- Savings Bank Account - 3000

- R.D.Accounts - 30000

- MIS Accounts - 3000

- KVP Accounts - 10000

In addition to the Savings Bank work, the PA has to attend to the counter work also. Consequently, the work relating to updation of data and records was pending.

iv. Further, the regular Sub-Post Master was deputed for training for a period of one month (i.e. April/May, 2012) and the applicant was forced by the 3^rd Respondent to take charge from him. Accordingly, he took charge from him and worked as SPM cum PA- RDPRSS. He also worked as Officiating SPM, Godavarikhani, whenever the regular SPM went on leave. Against the sanctioned strength of SPM and five PAs, the applicant alone performed the duties of SPM an