CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH KOLKATA O.A. 350/1719/2022 Date of Hearing : 26.11.2025 Date of Order: 11.12.2025 Coram : Hon’ble Smt. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member Hon’ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member Smt. Keya Roy, widow of Late Shyamal Roy residing at 56/14, Picnic Garden Road, P.O. & P.S.

Tiljala, Kolkata - 700 039; Email:

roysunanda860@gmail.com M: 8910501099 ……. Applicant -versus-

1. The Union of India, through the Secretary to Ministry of Communication, having his office at Postal Services Board, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi

110001;

2. The Senior Superintendent R.M.S. Division, Department of Post, 25, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata - 700 001; …… Respondents For the Applicant : Mr. K. Singh; Counsel For the Respondents : Mr. P.N. Sharma, Counsel O R D E R Per Hon’ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :

1. The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s)

highlighting the facts of the case:

“a) To quash/ cancel and/or set aside the impugned Order of Termination dated 16/09/2008 assed by Mr. B. B. Mondal;

b) The respondent be directed to transmit the entire records pertaining to the Department proceeding at the time of hearing before the Honourable tribunal.

c) An order directing the respondents to release the service benefits of the said Shyamal Roy;

d) Compassionate appointment of the applicant;

e) An appropriate Order or further Order as this Ld. Tribunal may seem fit and proper;”

2. Facts as narrated by the applicant in his O.A are as follows:

Applicant’s husband was a Gr. D Postal Department employee. He was absent from work from 03/02/1999 to 05/03/2001. Disciplinary proceedings were started against him by issuing him a charge memorandum on 06.07.2001 on charges of running a private business and misappropriation of funds during the period of his unauthorized absence. He made his representation against the charges. An inquiry was conducted in which he participated. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the Inquiry Report and the representation of the employee issued an order of dismissal from service on 03.09.2008.

A criminal case was also lodged against the applicant’s husband for fraudulently receiving Rs. 52,407.60/- from a private party on behalf of the Department. He was acquitted by the Criminal Court vide order dated 17.12.2016.

The applicant’s husband died on 09.01.2022. The applicant made several representations to the respondent authorities for payment of service dues of her husband and also for appointment of her daughter on compassionate grounds on account of her husband’s death. These representations did not elicit any positive response from the respondent department. Hence this O.A.

3. (i) Applicant’s case is that her husband was absent from work during the 1999- 2001 period owing to serious illness about which he had kept the authorities informed periodically. Therefore, his absence was not unauthorized. The applicant’s husband was a victim of conspiracy by some interested parties. He never ran a private business from his premises nor did he misappropriate any money. Applicant’s husband had defended himself during the inquiry as well as in the representations submitted by him against the charge memorandum as well as the Inquiry Report. The Disciplinary Authority did not consider his defence in proper spirit and punished him with dismissal from service.

(ii) Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the innocence of the applicant’s husband was proved when he was acquitted by the Criminal Court by its order dated 17.12.2016. In spite of his acquittal from the same charges that were cited to dismiss him from service, the authorities did not make efforts to reinstate him in service. The applicant’s husband during his lifetime made several efforts to defend himself in departmental as well as in criminal proceedings against him. Now that he had been acquitted by the Court, he should be