Disciplinary proceedings must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice; evidence collected secretly or without allowing the employee to cross-examine the witness is invalid, especially when factual charges are denied, necessitating a regular inquiry.

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

In this case, the applicant, while working as Postal Assistant in Bhawanipatna HO, one Sri Sanatana Panda of Village Mathura, Kalahandi, stated to have submitted an application dated 16.03.2020 to the Suptd. of Post Offices, Kalahandi Division, Bhawanipatna stating inter alia as under:

With due respect, I Sri Sanatana Panda, S/o-Sumeswar Panda, Vill/P.O.-Mathura, Via-Mahichala, Dist-Kalahandi, “beg to state that I am the permanent resident of village Mathura. One rural Postal Life Insurance Policy bearing No. OREAEG2121 stand in the name of my wife in Mathura Sub Post Office. In the last December it was send to your office for upto date. But it is a matter of great regret as there is no facility in Mathura Sub Post Office. I went to Junagarh Sub Post Office for deposit. Your Officer PA Mr. Upendra Sahu of Junagarh Sub Post Office denied to accept the deposit stating that this is the policy of Mahichala Sub Post Office. Не stated that you go and make complain before the officer, I will see. But according to the Govt. Policy deposit can be made in any of the Post Offices. People have faith on your Post Office. If your officer will show such behavior to the public, then the public will lose faith on your office. This matter is not only concerned to my wife but for public. Now Govt. has turned your Post Office to Postal Bank. How this department will run upon this behavior.”

The ASPO, Bhawanipatna Sub Division being directed by the Suptd. of Post Offices, Bhawanipatna, took the statement of the applicant and Sri Iswar Suryavansi SPM, Junagarh SO on 20.03.2020 in presence of the other witnesses and the applicant stoutly denied to have refused to accept the Pr“eymoiuu mgo f aronmd Smanaaktea ncao Pmanpdlaai nan bd euftotreeri ntgh ea noyf fsiuccehr ,w Io rdi ltlh aste e”. Sri Iswar Suryavansi, SPM, Junagarh SO, also denied the fact that Sri Sanatana Panda never came to his counter and also denied to have received any such complaint against any of his staff, including the applicant, who was admittedly working as PA in Junagarh SO during the period from 07.05.2019 to 07.07.2020. However, the Suptd. of Post Offices, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna, as the Disc. Authority of the applicant, issued Memorandum of charge dated 15.07.2020 against the applicant under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA“)S rRi uUlpeesn, 1dr9a6 S5a ahlul,e Pgoinsgta al As susnisdtaenr:t , Bhawanipatna HO while working as Postal Assistant, Junagarh SO, during the period from 07.05.2019 to 07.07.2020, denied to accept RPLI “premium deposit on 13.03.2020” from Sri Sanatana Panda At/PO-Mathura, Via-Mahichala, Dist-Kalahandi in respect of RPLI Policy No R-OR-EA-642121 held by Smt Soubhagya Manjari Thakur, Wife of the said Sri Panda. After implementation of CIS of PLI/RPLI w.e.f. 04.01.2016, premium can be deposited at any Post Office having McCamish in operation. As the facility of depositing RPLI Premia in McCamish is not available at Mathura BO i.a.w Mahichala SO, the said Sri Panda attended Junagarh SO to credit the premium and due to denial of service by the said official he was aggrieved and preferred a complaint against the said Sri Sahu. By his above action, the said Sri Sahu violated instructions contained in PLI Directorate Letter No 27-02/2010-LI dated 27.01.2011 circulated vide CO Bhubaneswar Letter No LI/1-2/Rig/Corr/Ch.Il dated 04.02.2011 & DO Kalahandi Memo No LI/2-1/04-05 dated 14.02.2011. Therefore it is alleged that Sri Upendra Sahu by his above action, failed to maintain devotion to duty as required of him under Rule-3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 & acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant which is not desirable under Rule-3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

The applicant submitted his reply on 11.08.2020 out- rightly denying the allegation made against him by stating that as far as he remembers, at no point of time, any such person namely Sri Sanatana Panda came to him for deposit of alleged Pr