CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH O.A.No. 060/477/2018 Chandigarh, the 25th day of April, 2025 CORAM:

HON’BLE SHRI RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)

Ved Parkash-II son of years, Late Sh. Rati Ram, aged 52 years, working as MTS, office of RMS, Karnal, Haryana. (Group C)

...Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. K.B. Sharma)

VERSUS

1. Union of India through the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Department of Posts, Sanchar Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.

2. Chief Postmaster General, Haryana Circle. Ambala.

3. Director Postal Services, Haryana Circle, Ambala.

4. Superintendent, Railway Mail Service, Ambala Division, Ambala-133001 …Respondent(s)

(By Advocate: Sh. Piyush Khanna)

O R D E R

Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):

1. The present Original Application filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is directed against order dated 14.01.2016 (Annexure A-1) whereby the appeal filed by the applicant against penalty order has been rejected and further against order dated 28.03.2018 (A-11) whereby revision petition of the applicant has been rejected. The applicant has sought reliefs as under:

“(A) Quash the order dated 14.1.2016 (Annexure A-1) vide which the appeal filed by the applicant against the penalty order has been rejected to the extent of "reduction from Sorting Assistant Cadre to Mail Man Cadre with immediate & cumulative effect" and the second part of penalty his "he will be placed at the initial stage in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.1800/- and third penalty is that his seniority will be fixed at the initial stage in the mail man cadre which is multiple penalty, imposed without any application of mind and the order stands vitiated as it does not meet the requirement of law being non-speaking and contrary to law.

(B) Quash the order dated 28.3.2018, Annexure A-11 by which the revision petition of the applicant has been rejected illegally on the ground being time barred.

(C) Issue direction to the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all the consequential benefits as if no impugned orders were passed against him with all the consequential benefits of arrears of pay and allowances @18% per annum from the date the amount became due to the actual date of payment.

(D) Any other order or direction deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued in favour of the applicant.

(E) Costs of the O.A. be allowed in favour of the applicant.”

2. Factual matrix of the case is as follows. The applicant was working as a Sorting Assistant in RMS HR Division when he was issued a charge sheet dated 30.09.2014 (Annexure A-2) under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The allegations against him included theft/wrongful concealment of a registered mailbag (No. CBD0001679616) received from D-5 Out, manipulation of records to show its short receipt, and attempt to tamper with or destroy documentary records. It was also alleged that the applicant was selling private goods during government duty.

3. An inquiry was conducted during which several witnesses were examined. It was alleged that mail was brought to the RMS office by Sh. Madan Lal, MTS, and handed to the applicant. Applicant instructed Sh. Chander Parkash to falsely report the bag as "short received". Applicant attempted to remove the bag by placing it inside another C-bag and loading it onto his motorcycle. Witnesses Sh. Karam Singh and Sh. Moti Ram allegedly saw this and reported to Sh. Mohinder Pal (P.I.), who in turn informed Sh. Pardeep Kumar Bajaj (ASRM). In his defence in the Disciplinary Inquiry, the applicant denied all charges. It was contested by the applicant that mail was handled by multiple persons viz. Madan Lal, an unnamed MTS, and Roshan Lal (MTS), and exclusive responsibility of the applicant was not established. The applicant claimed that errors were entered genuinely after noticing a short bag