CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD, this the 11^th day of February, 2025 Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member Hon’ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Administrative Member R. Rajashekar, S/o. Haribabu, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Postal Assistant, Inter Check Organization Savings Bank), O/o. Postmaster General, Hyderabad Region, Dak Sadan, Hyderabad - 500001.

.... Applicant.

(By Advocate: Dr. A Raghu Kumar)

Vs.

1. Union of India rep by its Secretary, Department of Posts - India, M/o. Communications and IT, Dak Sadan, New Delhi-110001.

2. The Chief Postmaster General, Telangana Circle, Hyderabad- 1.

3. The Postmaster General, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad-1.

4. The Director of Postal Services, O/o. Postmaster General, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad-1.

5. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda-1.

6. The Senior Accounts Officer, O/o. Postmaster General, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad-1.

7. The Accounts Officer, O/o. Postmaster General, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad-1.

... Respondents.

(By Advocate: Mrs. B Gayatri Varma, Sr. CGSC)

---

ORAL ORDER

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

By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief(s):-

“In view of the above facts and circumstances the applicant herein prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the 7^th respondent Proceedings No.PMG (H)/ICO-SB/Disc Case/RR/2015-16 dated 25.07.2016 imposing a penalty of recovery of Rs.2,13,622/- from the pay and allowances of the applicant without being a competent authority to impose such penalty in the guise of contributory negligence and 4^th respondent Memo.No.PMG(H)/ST/21-3/87/R.R/RO Hyd/2016 dated 22.06.2017 rejecting the appeal made by the applicant, and quash and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of rules on the subject matter and principles of natural justice, 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 are that the applicant initially joined as Postal Assistant on 22.07.2002 at Markapur Head Post Office and is presently working as Postal Assistant in the office of PMG from 04.01.2016. The applicant, while working as Postal Assistant at Bhongiri HO, was issued a Charge Memo dt. 24.03.2014 under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. The applicant submitted his representation, dated 02.04.2014, against the Charge Memo. While so, the 5^th Respondent cancelled the Charge Memo dated 24.03.2014 and decided to issue fresh proceedings. Subsequently, the 5^th Respondent issued Charge Memo, reiterating the charges as made out in the earlier Charge Memo, but added Annexures III & IV to the Charge Memo. The applicant denied the charges and, thereafter, the respondents have appointed one Sri G.Srinivas Rao as Inquiry Officer, even before the applicant submitting his written statement of defense against the Charge Memo, as the applicant sought extension of time for submitting the written statement of defense, vide his Representation dated 31.03.2015. In such circumstances, the applicant submitted Representation dated 10.04.2015, protesting against the action of the respondents. The respondents conducted inquiry and the Inquiry Officer submitted his Report dated 09.01.2016. The 7^th respondent, who is an incompetent authority, has issued the impugned Proceedings dated 25.07.2016, imposing a penalty of recovery of Rs.2,13,622/- to be recovered from the pay and allowances of the applicant in 42 installments @ Rs.5000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.3622/- in 43^rd installment commencing from the month of July 2016. Aggrieved over the same, the applicant approached this Tribunal by way of filing OA No.832/2016 and initially got interim stay of recovery. However, this Tribunal, vide Order dated 04.04.2017, dismissed the OA as premature, with liberty to the applicant to file an Appeal ag