it2025_00326 — This OA is filed against the recovery of ₹ 60,000 in instalments from the Applicant by following Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS and CCA) Rules. That punishment is upheld by the Tribunal as the Appellate Authority found that the Applicant had defrauded the people and the Department of Posts which lapses cannot be condoned

IT Rules

This OA is filed against the recovery of ₹ 60,000 in instalments from the Applicant by following Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS and CCA) Rules. That punishment is upheld by the Tribunal as the Appellate Authority found that the Applicant had defrauded the people and the Department of Posts which lapses cannot be condoned — This chunk is describing the charges brought against the applicant in a disciplinary case, including misappropriation of government funds and negligence in discharging duties as per CCS (Conduct) Rul... — Facts:The Applicant herein, joined as Postal Assistant on 5-7-1979. While working as Assistant Postmaster (Accounts), Guwahati, he was issued with a charge memorandum, dated 27-8-2013 by the Superintendent of Post Offices (R. No. 4 herein), for violation of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS and CCA) Rules. He was allowed to examine certain documents by the Disciplinary Authority. But his request for inspecting certain documents was refused by D&A authority as it was not found essential by DA. He submitted his reply, dated 19-11-2013 denying the allegations. The Applicant contends that an amount of ₹ 60,000 has been recovered from him without conducting proper enquiry. He was punished by recovery of ₹ 60,000 in instalments. His appeals against that order of punishment was rejected by higher authorities. The Applicant contends that though the charge-sheet was issued under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, he was punished under Rule 11 CCS (CCA) Rules which is not permissible. Hence he filed this OA to set aside the punishment, dated 29-11-2013 passed by R. No. 4 and Order, dated 14-10-2014 by Director of Postal Services (R. No. 3) by recovering of ₹ 60,000 in instalments. The Respondents filed the reply justifying their action in punishing Applicant for the lapses. The Tribunal after hearing both sides examined the case. The memo charges are "statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour on which the action is proposed to be taken under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against the Applicant APM (Accounts), Guwahati, GPO". The charges relate to misappropriation of Government money to the tune of ₹ 3,20,986 making the department to sustain that huge loss. He was also charged for negligence in discharging his duties thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty as required under Rule 3 (1),
(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The order of the Disciplinary Authority in regard to observations and findings are reproduced. In short, the DA found that the Applicant did not give instruction to remove excess from Bezera SO thereby failed to exercise provisions of Rule 59 of the Postal Manual, Volume VI, Part-III in true spirit resulting in misappropriation of ₹ 3,20,986. The Applicant also failed to notice the excess cash retained at Bezera SO on the date and did not take action to remove the excess cash on the corresponding dates. Thus, he violated provisions of Rule 59 and Rule 60 (3), Postal Manual, Volume VI, Part-III and Rule 58 of FHB, Volume I thereby violated Rule 3 (1),
(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. However, considering his length of service, he was awarded a penalty of ₹ 60,000 recoverable in 30 instalments, i.e. ₹ 2,000 every month. The appeal filed by the Applicant was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority concluded that the lapses on part of the official had facilitated the principal offender to defraud the people and the Department of Posts. The Applicant evaded his responsibilities. The Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment order without any bias. Hence the appeal was rejected by R. No. 3.

IT Rules

This OA is filed against the recovery of ₹ 60,000 in instalments from the Applicant by following Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS and CCA) Rules. That punishment is upheld by the Tribunal as the Appellate Authority found that the Applicant had defrauded the people and the Department of Posts which lapses cannot be condoned — This chunk is describing the charges brought against the applicant in a disciplinary case, including misappropriation of government funds and negligence in discharging duties as per CCS (Conduct) Rul... — Facts:The Applicant herein, joined as Postal Assistant on 5-7-1979. While working as Assistant Postmaster (Accounts), Guwahati, he was issued with a charge memorandum, dated 27-8-2013 by the Superintendent of Post Offices (R. No. 4 herein), for violation of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS and CCA) Rules. He was allowed to examine certain documents by the Disciplinary Authority. But his request for inspecting certain documents was refused by D&A authority as it was not found essential by DA. He submitted his reply, dated 19-11-2013 denying the allegations. The Applicant contends that an amount of ₹ 60,000 has been recovered from him without conducting proper enquiry. He was punished by recovery of ₹ 60,000 in instalments. His appeals against that order of punishment was rejected by higher authorities. The Applicant contends that though the charge-sheet was issued under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, he was punished under Rule 11 CCS (CCA) Rules which is not permissible. Hence he filed this OA to set aside the punishment, dated 29-11-2013 passed by R. No. 4 and Order, dated 14-10-2014 by Director of Postal Services (R. No. 3) by recovering of ₹ 60,000 in instalments. The Respondents filed the reply justifying their action in punishing Applicant for the lapses. The Tribunal after hearing both sides examined the case. The memo charges are "statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour on which the action is proposed to be taken under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against the Applicant APM (Accounts), Guwahati, GPO". The charges relate to misappropriation of Government money to the tune of ₹ 3,20,986 making the department to sustain that huge loss. He was also charged for negligence in discharging his duties thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty as required under Rule 3 (1),
(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The order of the Disciplinary Authority in regard to observations and findings are reproduced. In short, the DA found that the Applicant did not give instruction to remove excess from Bezera SO thereby failed to exercise provisions of Rule 59 of the Postal Manual, Volume VI, Part-III in true spirit resulting in misappropriation of ₹ 3,20,986. The Applicant also failed to notice the excess cash retained at Bezera SO on the date and did not take action to remove the excess cash on the corresponding dates. Thus, he violated provisions of Rule 59 and Rule 60 (3), Postal Manual, Volume VI, Part-III and Rule 58 of FHB, Volume I thereby violated Rule 3 (1),
(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. However, considering his length of service, he was awarded a penalty of ₹ 60,000 recoverable in 30 instalments, i.e. ₹ 2,000 every month. The appeal filed by the Applicant was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority concluded that the lapses on part of the official had facilitated the principal offender to defraud the people and the Department of Posts. The Applicant evaded his responsibilities. The Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment order without any bias. Hence the appeal was rejected by R. No. 3.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text