it2025_00912 — Applicants herein, a Postal Assistant at Khurda sub-division was reported to have committed fraud and misappropriation for which he was punished as a secondary offender. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and studying the documents held that the punishment Order, dated 5-7-2016, order of Appellate Authority, dated 2-1-2017 and charge-memo, dated 13-7-2015 are to be set aside as there was no evidence to prove any lapses of the Applicant linked to fraud or misappropriation of fund

Applicants herein, a Postal Assistant at Khurda sub-division was reported to have committed fraud and misappropriation for which he was punished as a secondary offender. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and studying the documents held that the punishment Order, dated 5-7-2016, order of Appellate Authority, dated 2-1-2017 and charge-memo, dated 13-7-2015 are to be set aside as there was no evidence to prove any lapses of the Applicant linked to fraud or misappropriation of fund — The chunk discusses an appeal case, O.A. No. 103 of 2015 (K. Mohanata v. Union of India and another), where an applicant was punished due to non-verification of an Error Book during an inspection. Th... — Facts: Applicant, a Postal Assistant in Odisha Circle of Postal Department was issued with a charge-memo, dated 13-7-2015 (A/1) for misconduct or misbehaviour alleging that after receiving the daily account of Pallahat SO, she failed to examine cash held by SPM, Pallahat, SO and to bring it to the notice of Postmaster, Khurda HO about excess cash if any, held by Pallahat SO. Thus a fraud of ₹ 11,16,942.50 was resorted to. A charge-memo was issued to the Applicant. Applicant submitted on 2-1-2017, stating that the daily accounts were properly checked with concerned vouchers and thereafter placed before the Postmaster for instruction. Applicant states that Postmaster had signed on the reverse of the daily accounts in token of his check. In spite of the above explanation R-3, Senior Superintendent of PO imposed the punishment of recovery of ₹ 53,623 towards the proportionate share of the Applicant for the loss recovered from her salary in 10 equal monthly instalments. Hence Applicant filed this OA against that order with all consequential benefits. Appellate Authority, R-2, Director Postal Services (HQ), Bhubaneshwar, rejected the contentions of the Applicant and agreed with lower authority who punished the Applicant. Order of the Appellate Authority is reproduced. Tribunal heard both sides. Applicant submitted that the fraud happened in 2008 but proceeding was initiated in 2015 after 7 years. Error Book mentioned by the Applicant was perused. It is submitted that the Applicant reported to the Postmaster about excess balance through Error Book which was deliberately not produced by Respondents. Applicant's Counsel submitted that the issue about non-verification of Error Book was stated in the appeal of the Applicant. Applicant produced a copy of the Tribunal Judgment, dated 28-6-2017 in O.A. No. 103 of 2015, K. Mohanata v. Union of India and another. In that case, the Applicant therein did not conduct inspection of one particular office of SO under Puri HO. During the inspection, he did not verify all records and did not consult depositors for obtaining information of the balance of Pass Book. In that, the Tribunal passed an order. Para. 8 of the order is reproduced. In that case, OA is allowed quashing the orders of the authorities. Respondents are directed that the recovered amount should be refunded to the Applicant therein. Present case is similar to facts in O.A. No. 103 of 2015 cited by Applicant's Counsel and the order in that case will apply in this case also.