The standard of evidence in departmental inquiries is based on preponderance of probabilities, not governed by strict rules of evidence.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OC.UAT.NToA.C 2K6 B0E/N00C2H8, C6U oTf T2A0C2K5 CORAM:

Reserved on 18.07.2025 Pronounced on 30.07.2 025 THE HON’BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)

THE HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)

Ruby Dash, aged about 41 years, W/o- Sri Ashish Kumar Mishra, At Lane-6, B-27, Kalyan Nagar, SRIT Colony, PO/PS-Budharaja, Dist. Sambalpur. Presently working as Inspector of Posts, BG 1st Sub-Division, RMS Berhampur 760001. BG Division.

……Applicant VERSUS

1. Union of India, represented through its Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, SansadMarg, New Delhi-110001.

2. The Director of Postal Services, (H.Q.), O/o-The Chief P.M.G., Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar-751001.

3. The Chief Postmaster General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar, District:-Khordha.

……Respondents For the applicant : M/s. J.Jena & S.Jena, Counsel For the respondents : Ms. R.L.Biswal, Counsel O R D E R PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

st Smt. Ruby Dash working as Inspector of Posts, BG 1 division, RMS BG Division, Berhampur is the applicant in this OA filed under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985 praying for a direction to respondent No.2 (DPS, BBSR) to supply copy of the authentication certificate of the transcript of conversation of petitioner with Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Acharya as sought by her in representation dated 22.09.2023 inter alia stating that alleging malfeasance or misfeasance charge sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued to her vide memorandum No. Vig/9-1(4)/2022 dated 26.06.2023 accompanying with all the listed documents except the documents shown in the list at Sl. No. 57, viz. Pen drive containing call recording of phonic conversation dated 20.07.2021 between her and Shri Sudhansu Kumar Acharya GDS BPM, Jhilminda BO. She submitted representation on 22.09.2023 requesting supply her the document at Sl. No. 57. Since the same was not supplied, she approached this Bench in OA No. 19/2024. During pendency of the OA, she was given the detailed call recording and phonic conversation stored in Pen Dinrfirvuec taunodu,s consequently, the OA No. 19/2024 was disposed of as vide order dated 29.10.2024, which order of this Bench was challenged by her before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 9774/2025, which was dismissed on 10.04.2025 thereby upholding the order of this Bench dated 29.10.2024 in OA 19/2024. According to the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, although the applicant did not exhaustively stated supplying he document at Sl. No. 57 with certificate of authenticity in the earlier OA, in terms of Section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , corresponding to Section 63 (4) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 , any electronic record sought to be used as evidence must be accompanied with a certificate of authenticity but the same was not supplied to her while giving the Pen Drive and before giving the said certificate to her proceeding further in the matter will be a complete harassment to the applicant when the said document was ultimately, in absence of any such certificate, to be held not admissible in law.

2. Ld. Counsel for the respondents objected the very maintainability of this OA by stating that, according to the applicant, in terms of the provision under Section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , corresponding to Section 63 (4) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 , the recordings of the conversation supplied to the her should have been preceded by an certificate of authenticity and, in absence of such certificate, the conversation supplied in Pen Drive is not admissible in law but as per the provision/law, the Central Administrative Tribunal is not bound by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) or Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC