CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this the 1^st day of December, Two Thousand Twenty Five CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)

AND HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA MEMBER(A)

M. Palanichamy, S/o (late) Murugan, No.3/33-1, Keelakaratu Street, Ramarajapuram, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District. .. Applicant By Advocate M/s. R. Malaichamy Vs

1. Union of India rep by The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul Division, Dindigul.

2. Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Nilakottai Sub Division, At Kodai Road Rs.

3. ShriM. Ravichandan, ADA, ASP, Palani Sub Division, Palani.

4. Shri V. Srinivasan I.O., ASP (HQ)

O/o the Superintendent of Post offices, Theni Division, Theni. .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. K. Rajendran, SCGSC

ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

Challenging the punishment of removal from service imposed on the applicant by the 3^rd respondent vide his order, dated 20.07.2016 and which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide his order dated 09.03.2017, the applicant has filed the OA for quashing of the said orders and for a direction to reinstatement in service with all attendant benefits.

2. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:

The Applicant, while serving as GDS BPM (Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster) at Jambuthuraikottai B.O., under Kodai Road R.S. Post Office, was placed under put-off duty by the 2nd respondent vide memo dated 13.01.2015. Subsequently, he was issued a charge sheet dated 18.05.2015 under Rule 10 of the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011, by the 3rd respondent. The allegations against him were that he had: (i) accepted a bribe from one M. Kannan for securing employment in Kottur PostOffice; (ii) accepted a bribe from one Murugan for securing a Postmanpost; and(iii) failed to inform the Department about the filing of Insolvency Petition No. 21/2014 before the Chief Additional District Court, Dindigul. The Applicant denied all the charges and submitted his representation, dated 01.08.2015 to the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the 4th respondent was appointed as the Inquiry Officer vide memo, dated

27.08.2015. In his inquiry report, dated 30.05.2016, the Inquiry Officer held Articles of Charge I and II as not proved and Article III as proved. The Applicant submitted his representation on the inquiry report on 07.06.2016 to the 3rd respondent. However, the 3rd respondent, disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer’s findings on Charges I and II, and without issuing any written notice or providing a reasonable opportunity to the Applicant to respond to such disagreement, unilaterally concluded that all three charges were serious in nature. Consequently, the Applicant was removed from engagement vide memo dated 20.07.2016. The Applicant preferred an appeal dated 17.08.2016 before the 1st respondent, which was rejected by order dated 09.03.2017. The Applicant contends that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. Hence, the present Original Application.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the defence had requested 11 additional documents through a letter, dated 30.01.2016 addressed to the Inquiry Officer. However, only four documents those listed at Serial Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 11 were supplied. The documents listed at Serial Nos. 4 to 10 were treated as irrelevant to the charges, and the request at Serial No. 8 was rejected on the ground that the item had not been handed over to the CGDS. He contended that the Inquiry Officer, by failing to furnish the requested documents, did not comply with the requirement under Rule 14(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. As a result, the applicant was denied a reasonable opportunity of defence, amounting to a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the applicant was handicapped during the cross-examination of witnesses and was unable to effectively rebut Article of Charge II.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that although the Inquiry Officer