CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this the 12^th day of February, Two Thousand Twenty Six CORAM :

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

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

R. Pandiarajan, S/o S. Radhakrishnan No.2/170, Silapadi, Dindigul. .. Applicant By Advocate M/s R. Malaichamy Vs.

1.Union of India rep by the Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai.

2.The Director of Postal Services, O/o Postmaster General, Southern Region (TN), Madurai.

3.The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul Division, Dindigul.

4.Inspector of Posts, Dindigul Sub-Division, Dindigul. .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. S. Nagarajan

ORDER

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

Challenging the punishment of removal from engagement order dated 21.06.2016 passed by the 3^rd respondent as well as the order dated 10.01.2017 confirming the said penalty by the 2^nd respondent, the applicant has filed the OA for setting aside the orders and for a direction to reinstate him in service with all consequential service benefits.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the OA are as follows:

The applicant states that while he was working as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (GDS BPM), Silapadi BO attached to Pudur SO, the 4th respondent placed him under put-off duty with immediate effect vide order dated 03.05.2014. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent issued a charge sheet, dated 08.12.2014 under Rule 10 of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, alleging that on 02.05.2014 he retained a cash balance of Rs.1,551.60 instead of Rs.3,541.60 and misappropriated the shortage amount of Rs.1,990/-. The applicant made representations, dated 24.12.2014 and 12.09.2015 to the 3rd respondent seeking revocation of the put-off duty order and reinstatement, stating that the alleged shortage amount was kept in his shirt pocket at the time of inspection. The Inquiry Officer without proper appreciation of the depositions of the State Witnesses held the charges as proved. The 3rd respondent furnished the inquiry report dated 28.03.2016 vide letter dated 04.04.2016 and called for the applicant’s reply. The applicant submitted his reply denying the charges. However, without considering the facts of the case, the deposition of P. Senthilkumar, and the applicant’s reply, the 3rd respondent passed an order dated 21.06.2016 removing the applicant from engagement. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred an appeal dated 22.08.2016 before the 2nd respondent, who vide order, dated 10.01.2017, confirmed the punishment of removal from engagement and rejected the appeal without considering the grounds raised by the applicant. Hence, the present application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in as much as the inspection authority received the alleged shortage of cash on 02.05.2014 itself which was kept in the shirt pocket of the applicant, the issue of shortage of cash will not arise. It is also submitted by him that during the inquiry, the witness namely, P.Senthilkumar deposed that he was asked to put signature in the inventory saying the applicant has credited the amount of shortage of cash. The other witness namely, D.Vadivel was not examined. Hence, it is evident that there is no shortage of cash as alleged by the 3^rd respondent. Therefore, imposing major penalty on the applicant is arbitrary and illegal and hence it is liable to be set aside by this Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the deposition of P.Senthilkumar reveals that the applicant intended to handover the amount which was kept in his shirt pocket but the Inspection Authority denied permission to credit the amount on the same day (02.05.2014) citing that time barred, but directed him to credit the same on 03.05.2014. Hence, removing the applicant from engagement for no fault on him amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

5. He also pointed out that there is only one article of charge alleging that h