CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI

O.A. No.2819 of 2013

Orders reserved on : 18.12.2018

Orders pronounced on : 21.12.2018

Hon’ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)

Hon’ble Mr. S.N. Terdal, Member (J)

Sanjeev Kumar S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma

GDS BPM, Ummarhgarh, Jalesar

Etah.

....Applicant

(By Adv. : Shri Shoeb Shakeel)

VERSUS

1. Union of India,

Through Secretary, Ministry of Communication,

Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. The Director Postal Services

O/o the Postmaster General

Agra Region, Agra.

3. The Supdt. Post Offices,

Etah Division, Etah.

.....Respondents

(By Adv. : Sh. Subham Pundir for Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan)

O R D E R

Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A):

Since counsel for the applicant failed to comply with the

order of previous date and has not even bothered to pay the

cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed on him, hence, he was not heard

and we proceed to adjudicate this case by invoking the

provisions of Rule 15 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and

respondents counsel has already been heard.

2

2. By filing this OA, the applicant is seeking the following

reliefs:-

“1.

That the impugned orders Annexure A-1 and A-2

may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2. That the respondents may kindly be directed to

return the amount which has been recovered from

the applicant in this regard.

3. That the respondents may kindly be directed to

pay the put off duty allowance to the applicant.

4. That any other benefit or relief which in the

circumstances of the case deemed fit and proper

be allowed to the applicant.

5. That the cost of the suit be awarded to the

applicant.”

3. The grievance of the applicant in this case is against the

order of the disciplinary authority dated 12.8.2009 (Annexure

A-1) vide which penalty of recovery of Rs.2,20,700/- was

imposed upon the applicant as also against the order of the

appellate authority dated 23.11.2011 (Annexure A-2) vide

which his representation against the order of aforesaid

recovery was rejected and enhanced to the extent that along

with punishment of recovery, the applicant was also debarred

from the promotion as well as appearing in all the

departmental exam for the next three years.

4. The background of the case is that payment of several

bogus money orders on different dates at Ummargrah BO in

account with Jalesar Town SO and now in Tundla SO under

Mainpuri Division amounting to Rs.3,5,70/- purported to

3

have been issued from different stations. The applicant,

during the period from 5.1.2007 to 11.2.2007 while working

as GDS BPM Ummar Garh (Jalesar Town) now Tundla S.O.

under Mainpuri Division, received or managed to receive

forged money orders at his BO for payment to persons

resident of delivery jurisdiction of Ummar Garh BO. The

details of the said forged money orders paid to different

payees under the jurisdiction of above BO are shown in

Annexure A-5 at page 37 & 38 of the OA.

4.1

The detailed enquiry was conducted in respect of

payment of money orders paid by GDS Ummar Garh revealed

that the money orders paid by the applicant to the tune of

Rs.3,55,700/- were actually not issued from any such post

office as mentioned in MO forms and also not actually

remitted by the persons as noted in MO forms in place of

name & address of the remitter of money orders. After

detailed departmental enquiry, it was established that

Rs.3,55,700/- which has actually not been received by the

department was actually paid to different persons on different

dates by the applicant. As such the applicant is responsible

for the above loss to the Government. The applicant was

therefore proceeded against under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct

& Employment) Rules, 2001 for the lapses on his part vide

Memo dated 6.7.2009 which was concluded by awarding the

punishment of recovery of Rs.2,20,700/- @ Rs.2000/- per

4

months vide Memo dated 12.8.2009. Aggrieved by the said

recovery order, applicant also pref