CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD, this the 1^st day of July, 2025 Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member Hon’ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member N. Tirupathi S/o Late N. Narayana, Aged about 55 years, Occupation: Postal Assistant, (Removed), Mancherial HO 504208, Adilabad division R/o H.No. 1-3-183/40/1, SBI Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad.

..... Applicant.

(By Advocate: Mr. M Venkanna)

Vs.

1. Union of India represented by The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts - India, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001

2. The Chief Postmaster General, A.P. Circle, "Dak Sadan", Hyderabad - 500001

3. The Director of Postal Services, Hyderabad Region, O/o the Postmaster General, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad - 500001

4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Adilabad Division, Adilabad 504001.

.. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. A Radhakrishna, Sr. PC for CG)

-----

Digitally signed by KARAN KAR DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=

500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= Page 1 of 6 NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=

cf00bb597b6051b5a127d240a608798336d0ecf5a A N

9 7 5 b 2 1 0 8 b 6 4 a 0 9 1 e 6 b 9 e 8 b 9 4 e 9 6 5 2 c4 e 5 c9 e 2 e a 0 c 9 4 5 e 1 , c S e6 E d R d I 5 A 0 L 7 N a U 1 M eb B 4 E 0 R e8 = c

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member)

By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief:

“This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set aside the appellate Order vide Memo No. PMG (H) / ST / 21-3 / 45 / NT / ADB / 2015 dated 14.12.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent and decision of the disciplinary authority i.e. 4th respondent vide Memo No. F4-1/05-06 dated 07.08.2015 imposing the harsh punishment of Removal, both being illegal, arbitrary and against the rules and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and

proper in the circumstances of the case..”

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that he was appointed as Postal Assistant on 25-01-1982 in Adilabad division. The applicant was issued a charge sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by the 4th respondent vide Memo No. F4-1/ 05-06 dated 29-08-2009. On receipt of the charge sheet from the 4th respondent, the applicant submitted a representation dated 09-09-2009 for supply copies of the documents listed in the Annexure -III of the charge sheet to give effective representation but the 4th respondent denied the same vide Lr. No. F4-1/05- 06 dated 10-09-2009, and informing that the documents would be supplied at the appropriate time during the course of inquiry. Then the applicant submitted his representation dated 14-09-2009 totally denying all the four charges leveled against the applicant. The disciplinary authority, not satisfied with the reply given by the applicant, initiated Rule - 14 Inquiry by appointing Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. The applicant vide his representation dated 21-11-2011 asked the inquiry officer to supply all the copies of the documents listed in the annexure - III of the charge sheet and to supply the additional documents requisitioned by him, but the same were not supplied to him by the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority, on 23-11-2011, after a lapse of more than 2 years of issue of Rule 14 charge sheet, had issued a corrigendum changing the entire documents listed in Annexure - III of the Rule 14 charge sheet, vide his Memo NO. F4-1/05-06 Dated 23-11-2011. The Digitally signed by KARAN KAR DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=

500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= Page 2 of 6 NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=

cf00bb597b6051b5a127d240a608798336d0ecf5a 95