it2025_00919 — Applicant, Inspector of Posts in Sambalpur West Division was punished by recovering ₹ 1,00,000 for non-detection of misappropriation of suspected withdrawals in Post Office. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, set aside the punishment and held that the charge-sheet has not been proved by Disciplinary Order, dated 27-3-2017 (A/3) due to which it is not sustainable to pass the punishment order without refuting the claim of the Applicant. Hence, the punishment of recovery is set aside and

IT Rules

Applicant, Inspector of Posts in Sambalpur West Division was punished by recovering ₹ 1,00,000 for non-detection of misappropriation of suspected withdrawals in Post Office. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, set aside the punishment and held that the charge-sheet has not been proved by Disciplinary Order, dated 27-3-2017 (A/3) due to which it is not sustainable to pass the punishment order without refuting the claim of the Applicant. Hence, the punishment of recovery is set aside and Director, Postal Services (R-3) to reconsider the Letter, dated 18-2-2017 (A/2) filed by Applicant in his defence and pass a fresh order within three months — This chunk discusses a point in an appeal case (OA No. 438 of 2017 with M.A. No. 145 of 2018) where the issue of non-delivery of verification memos to the applicant has not been disproven by the disc... — Facts: Applicant, Inspector of Posts under Respondents in Sambalpur West Division was issued with a charge-sheet, dated 10-1-2017 (A/1) under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 alleging failure of the Applicant to detect misappropriation by one Shri Tandia, GDS BPM of Barabazar Branch Office during the inspection for his failure to conduct verification of some suspected withdrawals. The Applicant made representation against the charges levelled against him which was considered by Director of Postal Services (R-4 herein), who passed an order to recover ₹ 1,00,000 from the Applicant from his pay at a monthly instalment of ₹ 10,000 from the month of April, 2017. Applicant filed representation against the punishment. But R-3 dismissed the appeal. Hence this OA is filed against the said punishment order. Tribunal directed the Respondents not to recover the amount till the OA is disposed of. Grounds urged in this OA against the punishment order is challenged on various grounds. One of the grounds is that, the punishment order has been passed only on the basis of presumption with no proof. Previous judgments are quoted to justify the stand of the Applicant. One of the statement is that, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) did not hold an inquiry to prove the charges. Similar earlier cases are quoted to set aside the punishment order. Respondents state that due to the failure of Applicant, misappropriation by the then GDS BPM is not deducted. If the Applicant had checked, the misappropriation of an amount of ₹ 3,70,000 could be prevented. Tribunal heard the case. The submission of both sides were noted. Points which are appropriate to prove the cases were not considered by the Respondents. Similar cases disposed of by the Tribunal which are enclosed is taken note of. Tribunal noted the submission of Respondents that the Applicant failed to verify four verification memos involving high withdrawals. Under Rule 106 of Postal Manual, a supervisory official can be held responsible for loss, if it is established that his negligence nor dereliction of duty caused loss or fraud in question. Other omissions of the Applicant to check the violation of Rule 85
(iii) of POSB Manual as alleged in the charge-sheet is noted. In a previous O.A. No. 79 of 2017, there was no evidence on record of the Applicant in that OA which can be linked to the fraud or misappropriation for which the Applicant has been punished as a secondary offender. In the present case, the charge against the Applicant is violation of Rule 85
(iii) of POSB Manual which is linked to the loss. The Applicant stated in his reply that the alleged vouchers for verification is not received by him. Disciplinary Authority in his Order, dated 18-2-2017 (A/2) to the charge-sheet stated that he has not received the alleged vouchers for verification. DA has not specifically stated that there is no proof in support of sending the said memo to the Applicant. In the present OA, the cases cited by the Applicant to prove his viewpoint is distinguishable. The memos listed in the Article 11 of the charge-sheet to the Applicant has been furnished in the pleadings of the Applicant. Hence this case is distinguishable from the one relied upon by Respondents. No evidence of despatch / delivery of the verification memos listed in Article 11 of the charge-sheet to the Applicant has been furnished in the pleadings of Respondents in this OA. Judgment in O.A. No. 634 of 2009 [ Sukomal Bag v. Union of India ] where the charge is lack of supervision which is not the case in the present OA and relied upon by the Applicant is inapplicable in the present OA.

IT Rules

Applicant, Inspector of Posts in Sambalpur West Division was punished by recovering ₹ 1,00,000 for non-detection of misappropriation of suspected withdrawals in Post Office. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, set aside the punishment and held that the charge-sheet has not been proved by Disciplinary Order, dated 27-3-2017 (A/3) due to which it is not sustainable to pass the punishment order without refuting the claim of the Applicant. Hence, the punishment of recovery is set aside and Director, Postal Services (R-3) to reconsider the Letter, dated 18-2-2017 (A/2) filed by Applicant in his defence and pass a fresh order within three months — This chunk discusses a point in an appeal case (OA No. 438 of 2017 with M.A. No. 145 of 2018) where the issue of non-delivery of verification memos to the applicant has not been disproven by the disc... — Facts: Applicant, Inspector of Posts under Respondents in Sambalpur West Division was issued with a charge-sheet, dated 10-1-2017 (A/1) under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 alleging failure of the Applicant to detect misappropriation by one Shri Tandia, GDS BPM of Barabazar Branch Office during the inspection for his failure to conduct verification of some suspected withdrawals. The Applicant made representation against the charges levelled against him which was considered by Director of Postal Services (R-4 herein), who passed an order to recover ₹ 1,00,000 from the Applicant from his pay at a monthly instalment of ₹ 10,000 from the month of April, 2017. Applicant filed representation against the punishment. But R-3 dismissed the appeal. Hence this OA is filed against the said punishment order. Tribunal directed the Respondents not to recover the amount till the OA is disposed of. Grounds urged in this OA against the punishment order is challenged on various grounds. One of the grounds is that, the punishment order has been passed only on the basis of presumption with no proof. Previous judgments are quoted to justify the stand of the Applicant. One of the statement is that, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) did not hold an inquiry to prove the charges. Similar earlier cases are quoted to set aside the punishment order. Respondents state that due to the failure of Applicant, misappropriation by the then GDS BPM is not deducted. If the Applicant had checked, the misappropriation of an amount of ₹ 3,70,000 could be prevented. Tribunal heard the case. The submission of both sides were noted. Points which are appropriate to prove the cases were not considered by the Respondents. Similar cases disposed of by the Tribunal which are enclosed is taken note of. Tribunal noted the submission of Respondents that the Applicant failed to verify four verification memos involving high withdrawals. Under Rule 106 of Postal Manual, a supervisory official can be held responsible for loss, if it is established that his negligence nor dereliction of duty caused loss or fraud in question. Other omissions of the Applicant to check the violation of Rule 85
(iii) of POSB Manual as alleged in the charge-sheet is noted. In a previous O.A. No. 79 of 2017, there was no evidence on record of the Applicant in that OA which can be linked to the fraud or misappropriation for which the Applicant has been punished as a secondary offender. In the present case, the charge against the Applicant is violation of Rule 85
(iii) of POSB Manual which is linked to the loss. The Applicant stated in his reply that the alleged vouchers for verification is not received by him. Disciplinary Authority in his Order, dated 18-2-2017 (A/2) to the charge-sheet stated that he has not received the alleged vouchers for verification. DA has not specifically stated that there is no proof in support of sending the said memo to the Applicant. In the present OA, the cases cited by the Applicant to prove his viewpoint is distinguishable. The memos listed in the Article 11 of the charge-sheet to the Applicant has been furnished in the pleadings of the Applicant. Hence this case is distinguishable from the one relied upon by Respondents. No evidence of despatch / delivery of the verification memos listed in Article 11 of the charge-sheet to the Applicant has been furnished in the pleadings of Respondents in this OA. Judgment in O.A. No. 634 of 2009 [ Sukomal Bag v. Union of India ] where the charge is lack of supervision which is not the case in the present OA and relied upon by the Applicant is inapplicable in the present OA.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text