ORDER

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

The instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following reliefs:

"8.1 That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to set aside and quash the impugned Memorandum of chargesheet dated 21.11.2019, the impugned penalty order dated 03/5.02.2020 and the impugned appellate order dated 13.05.2022.

8.2 That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to refund back the amount already recovered from the applicant in pursuance to the impugned penalty order dated 03/05.02.2020.

8.3 Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case."

2. The applicant was working as SPM Laitkorpeak SO. A Charge sheet dated 21.11.2019 was issued against him proposing to hold an inquiry under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on the allegation that while working as PA Jowai MDG during the period from 11.04.2016 to 02.04.2019, he accepted the schedule of RD deposit from one Agent Smt. Remika Chettri through Shri T.B. Rana, husband and messenger of the said agent without handing over the amount of the schedules and the applicant accepted the schedule and updated the transaction in the finacle system without confirming the acknowledgement of credit as prescribed in Rule 31 (1) (2) (ii) Rule 105 and Rule 106 of Post Office Saving Bank Manual Volume I. The applicant submitted his representation dated 02.12.2019 to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Meghalaya Division against the Charge sheet. The Disciplinary Authority (Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Meghalaya Division) without any inquiry and without analysis of any evidence has issued the impugned order dated 03/05.02.2020, whereby a penalty of withholding of increment for 6 months without cumulative effect and recovery of Rs. 20000/- per month from salary of the applicant till proportionate share of Rs. 3,05,975/- is recovered, has been imposed upon the applicant, and the appeal dated 19.03.2020 has been upheld by the impugned appellate order dated 13.05.2022. Recovery was started from the month of February, 2020 and the entire amount has been recovered from the salary of the applicant.

3. It is stated that during the disciplinary proceedings neither Smt Remika Chettri nor her husband cum messenger, Shri T.B Rana who have deposited the cash to the SPM Shri Rishikesh Das and the RD schedules to the applicant or the SPM Shri Rishikesh Das have been examined. There is no explanation of the alleged Govt. loss or the amount of recovery in the penalty order. The pecuniary loss to the Government has not been caused by applicant by negligence or breach of order as required under Rule 11(iii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The case of the applicant is that of no evidence and the order is perverse. The respondents have acted against the settled position of law in O.K. Bhardwaj v. UOI [(2001) 9 SCC 180] that if the charges are factual in nature and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should be called for and the same is a minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice. The penalty order and the appellate orders have been passed with closed mind without any application on mind and the same are based on surmises and conjectures. Impugned Charge sheet dated 21.11.2019, penalty order dated 03/05.02.2020 and the appellate order dated 13.05.2022 are arbitrary and illegal being violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also principles of natural justice, hence liable to be set aside and quashed.

4. The respondents filed written statement and states that the disciplinary proceeding against the Applicant was initiated after conducting a detailed fact finding enquiry, which clearly indicated that the lapses on the part of the Applicant contributed to the occurrence of the fraud and huge monetary loss to the Department/Government. Further, the Applicant was not char