The enhancement of punishment beyond the prescribed time limit renders the order invalid, emphasizing the importance of adherence to procedural rules.

.………RESPONDENTS By Advocate: Shri Vidyapati Tripathi ORDER (Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Shri Anil Kumar Singh and Shri M K Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:

“i. This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 07.12.2017 and 20.06.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 and 3.

ii. This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct to the respondents refund amount of Rs. 200000 along with the 18% interest with 6% penal interest from the date of recovery to the date of actual payment.

iii. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

iv. Award cost of the original application in favour of the applicant.”

3. A compendium of the facts as have been narrated in the present original application is that the applicant was employed as Chief Supervisor, SBCO, Head Office Katchery Allahabad in the Department of Posts and was assigned supervisory duties at Hanumanganj Sub Post Office during the period from 10.05.2012 to 28.10.2013. He retired from service on 31.12.2017. The contention of the applicant is that charges leveled against him that while working as Chief Supervisory, SBCO, Head Office Katchery Allahabad from 10.05.2012 to 28.10.2013, he did not make proper checkup of the withdrawal of the Postal Assistant Hanumanganj Sub Post Office and in view of that, he did not comply with para 36 of SB Control Procedure and due to this reason the department suffered a loss of Rs. 1492700/- and that he has violated Rule 3(I)(ii) of the Central Civil Services (conduct) Rules, 1964 and he was imposed with the punishment of Censure. Applicant has denied the aforesaid charges leveled against him. It has also been averred in the OA that Appellate Authority after expiry of the period provided under Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 issued the show cause notice for enhancement of the punishment calling reply from the applicant. On submission of the reply the punishment was enhanced for recovery of amount of Rs 2 lacs from the salary of the applicant. Some amount was recovered from the salary of the applicant till his retirement. Remaining amount was deducted from the leave encashment. Against the order passed by the Appellate Authority enhancing the punishment, the applicant represented before the PMG and the represention moved by the applicant was rejected / dismissed without considering the issue raised in the matter. It is further averred that the applicant was not directly involved in the present matter and misappropriation was done by the Postal Assistant of the Hanumanganj Sub Post Office. Authorities concerned while passing the impugned orders have not taken into consideration the relevant provision. Thus, argument has been made that the impugned orders have been passed ignoring the settled legal proposition and that the OA is liable to be allowed and orders as impugned herein are liable to be set aside thereby directing the respondents to refund the recovered amount to the applicant. It has also been contended in the OA that if entire prosecution case is taken into consideration, mere lackness in supervision at the most will amount to omission and it cannot be attributed to a financial misconduct and thus the charges leveled against the applicant are baseless and do not constitute misconduct.

4. In their counter affidavit, respondents have stated that applicant had not minutely checked the deposits amount entered in computers (RD Accounts) by the Postal Assistnat of S