Smt. Sharesho Devi vs Chief Post Master on 12 October 2026

1. Whether the departmental enquiry conducted in this case was legal, just and fair and was not in violation of the principles of natural justice. If not, what directions are called for in this case?

2. As per the reference sent by the Government of India to this Tribunal in this case.

3. Relief. The claimant examined himself as WW-1 by way of affidavit. He reiterated the averments made in his statement of claim. He stated that he had been appointed as a Messenger/Stamp Vendor and that his services were terminated on 02.09.2004. He further stated that he had never been given a notice of dismissal or the arrears due to him. He relied upon the documents forming part of the record. During his cross- examination, the workman stated that his services were terminated on 02.09.2004. He admitted that he had been issued a chargesheet dated 09.10.2004 and had participated in the departmental inquiry. He also admitted that he had not received a copy of the inquiry report. He denied that his services were terminated only after completion of the departmental inquiry and approval by the disciplinary authority. The departmental inquiry was considered by this Tribunal and was held to be vitiated on account of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice and the manner in which the inquiry had been conducted. Thereafter, the management was permitted to lead evidence before this Tribunal to establish the alleged misconduct against the workman. In order to prove the misconduct, the management examined its witnesses.

MW-2, Sh. R.S. Khati, stated in his affidavit that he was a retired Superintendent, Postal Store Depot, Bareilly and that in the year 2004 he was posted as Inspector Posts, Narendra Nagar. According to him, on 02.09.2004, when the workman was posted at Kankhal Post Office as E.D. Stamp Vendor, he was allegedly caught by the Circle Checking Squad for putting used postal stamps on registered letters and retaining money received from the public. He stated that during the inquiry it was found that used postal stamps of ₹20/- and ₹10/- had been affixed on registered letters bearing Nos. 162 and 163 respectively. He further stated that used postal stamps worth ₹155/- were recovered from the personal possession of the workman. He relied uponCopy of the Duty Diary for the period from 01.09.2004 to 15.09.2004, exhibited as Ex. MW-2/1. MW-2 was cross-examined. He admitted that the duty diary did not mention his visit to Kankhal Post Office on 02.09.2004. He stated that when he reached Kankhal Post Office at about 4:00 p.m., he saw the workman dealing with registered post. He further admitted that the duty of booking registered post was assigned to the Registration Clerk, though he could not recall his name. He also admitted that he had not himself seen the workman affixing the postal stamps on the registered envelopes. He stated that the person who had booked the registered letter had not made any written complaint to the department. The management also examined MW-3, Sh. B.S. Panchpal, who was posted as Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Haridwar, in the year 2004. He deposed regarding the inspection conducted at Kankhal Post Office on 02.09.2004 and stated that the workman was found allegedly using used postal stamps on registered letters. He also stated the fact regarding recovery of used postal stamps from the workman. He relied upon the following documents:

1. Original copy of the statement of the workman — Ex. MW-3/1.

2. Original memo of putting off duty — Ex. MW-3/2.

3. Original register containing registered cover No. 163 — Ex. MW- 3/3.

4. Statement of Sh. Chandra Prakash — Ex. MW-3/4.

5. Copy of the original chargesheet dated 09.10.2004 — Ex. MW-3/5.

6. Original copy of the report submitted by the Post Master, Kankhal Post Office, dated 26.09.2004 — Ex. MW-3/6.

7. Original copy of the explanation to the chargesheet dated 09.10.2004 submitted by the workman — Ex. MW-3/7. MW-3 was also cross-examined. He admitted that on 02.09.2004 he was on duty at Haridwar Post Office and that movement of officials from their parent office to another subdivision was ordinarily recorded in a movement diary. He stated that such diary might be available in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Dehradun, and that the movement to Kankhal Post Office could have been recorded therein. He further stated that the duty of the Postal Assistant included booking registered post and that the Registration Clerk and other officials were present at the post office. He also stated that no complaint had been filed by the person who had booked the registered letter. Issue no. 2 Since the departmental enquiry has already been held to be vitiated, the management was permitted to lead evidence before this Tribunal to prove the misconduct alleged against the workman. The management examined MW-2 Sh. R.S. Khati and MW-3 Sh. B.S. Panchpal in support of its case. Both the witnesses have deposed regarding the alleged incident dated 02.09.2004 and the alleged recovery of used postal stamps from the workman. However, their evidence has to be considered in the light of their cross-examination and the other material brought on record. MW-2, in his cross-examination, admitted that Ex. MW-2/1 did not record his visit to Kankhal Post Office on 02.09.2004. He further admitted that he had not himself seen the workman affixing the used postal stamps and that the duty of booking registered post was assigned to the Registration Clerk. He also admitted that no complaint had been made by the person who had booked the registered letter. Moreover, MW-3 in his cross-examination admitted that movement of officials from their parent office to another subdivision was maintained in a movement diary and that the movement to Kankhal Post Office on 02.09.2004 could also have been recorded. He also admitted that no complaint had been filed by the person who had booked the registered letter.

Thus, the evidence of the management witnesses is not sufficient to establish the case against the workman. In particular, MW-2 admittedly did not see the workman affixing the used stamps; the duty diary relied upon by him does not record his visit to Kankhal Post Office; and the person who had actually booked the registered letters was not examined and had made no written complaint. Further, despite the assertion of the workman that the duty of booking registered post was that of the Registration Clerk/Postal Assistant, the management has not examined the concerned official to establish that it was the workman who had affixed the alleged used stamps on the registered articles. It is also significant that the departmental enquiry in which the management had relied upon the same allegations has already been held to be vitiated by this Tribunal. Once the management was called upon to establish the misconduct by evidence before this Tribunal, it was required to place sufficient and reliable material on record in support of the action taken against the workman. On perusal of the evidence led before this Tribunal, particularly the admissions made by MW-2 and MW-3 in their cross-examination, this Tribunal is of the view that the misconduct has not been proved against the claimant so as to justify his termination from service. Therefore, the action of terminating the workmanShriJagdish Prasad w.e.f. 30.11.2005 is held to be illegal and unjustified. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the workman and against the management. The question that now arises is with regard to the relief to which the legal heir of the deceased claimant is entitled. As a general rule, where termination is held to be illegal, reinstatement with full back wages is an appropriate relief. However, it is well settled that reinstatement is not an automatic relief in cases of illegal termination, and the relief may be moulded by the Industrial Adjudicator according to the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, during the pendency of the proceedings, the claimant, Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad, had expired. Consequently, the relief of reinstatement can no longer be granted. However, the legal heir of the deceased claimant, Smt. Sharesho Devi, having been brought on record, cannot be deprived of the monetary relief arising out of the illegal termination of his services. Keeping in view that the claimant had been working as an E.D. Stamp Vendor since September 1989, the manner in which his services

were discontinued and the prolonged litigation pursued in respect of his claim, this Tribunal considers it appropriate to mould the relief by awarding lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential benefits. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) is considered just and reasonable. Accordingly, the management is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) to Smt. Sharesho Devi, legal heir of the deceased claimant, in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential benefits, within two months from the date of publication of this Award, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the Award till its realization. A copy of this Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for notification under Section 17 of the Act. The file be consigned to the Record Room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG

Dated 12.10.2026 Presiding Officer

CGIT – cum – Labour Court – II