(Reserved on 11.11.2025)

Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad ****

Original Application No.1424 of 2015 This the 21^st Day of November, 2025.

Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mrs. Manju Pandey, Member (A)

Souraj S/o Late Shri Raghuveer dead represented through LRs. as under:-

1/1 Smt. Poonam Sharma aged about 56 years widow of Late Shri Souraj

1/2 Kuldeep Sharma aged about 36 years son of Late Shri Souraj; 1/3 Sandeep Sharma aged about 35 years son of Late Shri Souraj;

1/4 Smt. Mamta Sharma aged about 32 years daughter of Late Shri Souraj, wife of Shri Brijesh Sharma;

All are resident of Indira Vihaar Colony, (Ambeheta Shekha Road), Deoband, Saharanpur (U.P.).

….Applicants By Advocate: Mr. S K Kushwaha Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communication and I.T., Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.

2. Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow, 3. Director Postal Services, Bareilly Region, Bareilly, 4. Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur.

…Respondents By Advocate: Mr. Vinod Kumar Pandey

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mrs. Manju Pandey, Member (A):

Learned counsel for both the parties are present and heard.

2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-

“(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 19.08.2014, 01.12.2014, and 31.07.2014 with all consequential benefits accrued after quashing the aforesaid impugned orders, as the charge sheet culminated in punishment order dated 29.05.2014 passed by disciplinary authority are merged with the order of appellate authority's order under revisional power.

(ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to treat the applicant in service without any blame on service carrier, in the interest of justice.

(iii) issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) To award the cost of the application in favour of the applicant.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was charge-sheeted under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, for alleged financial irregularities committed while working as Savings Bank Counter Postal Assistant at Deoband Post Office (Saharanpur H.O.), where he allegedly effected two unauthorised withdrawals of Rs.10,000/- each on 21.02.2013 and 26.03.2013 from the account of one Smt. Hukmo without the passbook and by using forged thumb impressions. The charge-sheet was issued by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Saharanpur, vide Memorandum No. SB/Janch/Deoband/2011 dated 10.06.2013, which was denied by the applicant vide his representation dated 19.07.2013. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry, submitted his report dated 28.02.2014 holding the charges as not proved. The Disciplinary Authority, disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, issued a dissent note along with a copy of the enquiry report vide letter No. SB/Janch/Deoband/2011 dated

09/11.04.2014, and after considering the applicant’s representation dated 23/24.04.2014, imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage from Rs.12,680/- to Rs.12,230/- for two years without cumulative effect vide Memorandum No. SB/Janch/Deoband/2011 dated 29.05.2014. The Punishment order was examined by the reviewing authority i.e. DP Bareilly and a notice was issued by him to applicant vide memo no. RPB/Vig/PR- 09/2014 dated 19.08.2014 informing him about his intention to review the punishment imposed upon him and thereafter issued a notice vide memo No.RPB/Vig/Rev-14/2014 dated 01.12.2014 proposing to enhance the punishment to “compulsory retirement” and called for the representation of the applicant. The reviewing authority i.e. DPS Bareilly enhanced the punishment to compulsory retirement vide his memo No.RPB/Vig/Rev- 14/2014 dated 31.07.2015 after careful c