CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this the 3^rd day of November, Two Thousand Twenty Five CORAM :

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

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

S. Karuppusamy, S/o K.Subramanian, th No.352, 18 Ward, Anna Nagar, Old Ayakudi & Post, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. .. Applicant By Advocate M/s R. Malaichamy Vs.

1. Union of India rep by rep by The Director of Postal Services, Western Region (TN)

Coimbatore.

2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Officers, Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore . .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. S. Nagarajan

ORDER

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

Aggrieved by the order dated 07.01.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent, whereby the applicant was removed from service which was subsequently upheld in appeal by the Appellate Authority vide order, dated 22.05.2015,the applicant has filed this O.A. seeking to set aside the said orders and for a direction to reinstate him in service and conduct a de novo enquiry.

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

The applicant, while serving as a Postal Assistant at S.S. Kulam S.O. under Coimbatore HO, was placed under suspension by the 2nd respondent vide Memo dated, 19.07.2013, pending disciplinary proceedings. He was subsequently issued a charge sheet, dated 16.09.2014 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, alleging financial irregularities. During the relevant period, the applicant and his wife met with an accident and his mother was seriously ill. Due to these circumstances, when depositors approached him, he sought hand loans from them with an assurance to deposit the amounts later, and issued departmental papers as acknowledgment. He intended to repay the amounts after selling a piece of land but delayed the deposits. An inspection revealed financial irregularities. However, the applicant later credited the entire amount with penal interest and sought leniency. He alleges that both the Presenting Officer and Inquiry Officer persuaded him to admit the charges, promising to recommend leniency. Based on his admission, the Inquiry Officer, without examining the prosecution witnesses, submitted a report dated 30.12.2014 holding the charges as proved. Relying on this report, the 2nd respondent removed the applicant from service with immediate effect vide order dated 07.01.2015. His appeal dated 22.01.2015 was rejected by order, dated 22.05.2015. Contending that the punishment is disproportionate to the charges, the applicant has filed the present O.A for the aforementioned relief.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant did not commit any misconduct wilfully or wantonly. The applicant only received the amount from the depositors as hand loan and promised them to credit the said amount in the due course. This fact has not been considered by the respondents. He further submitted that the applicant has utilized the amount only with the consent of the depositors.

4. The counsel also submitted that the applicant was unable to resolve the issue within the stipulated time frame due to unforeseen circumstances.

During the course of inspection, financial irregularities were alleged against him and his signature was obtained under pressure in the dictated statement. He contended that both the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer coerced him into admitting the charges, promising that they would ensure leniency from the second respondent. Based on this false assurance, the applicant admitted the charges.

5. He further argued that, notwithstanding any admission on the part of the applicant, it is the duty of the Inquiry Officer to independently examine the prosecution’s case and establish the charges through proper procedure. However, in the case of the applicant, the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer bypassed the due process by obtaining a dictated statement and using it to record an admission of guilt during the inquiry, which he claims is a violation of the principles