N HARIKUMAR vs THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF POST NEW DELHI on 31 December 2024

O R D E R

HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The factual matrix of the case are as under : The applicant entered the department as a RTP Postal Assistant on 19.10.1985. On completion of 3 years of service he volunteered to serve in the Army Postal Service (APS) and he was enrolled as Warrant Officer in the APS with effect from 28.12.1988. After successful completion of military training he was posted as Warrant Officer in 10 Division Postal Unit, C/o.56 APO and on successful completion of his field tenure he was posted to CBPO, New Delhi on 23.08.1992. While working there he applied to take part in the IPO/IRM Examination for vacancies in the Kerala Circle. He appeared in the examination after proper permission from 07.08.1996 to 09.08.1996 from Delhi Circle. 1996 Examination was later cancelled by the Postal Directorate Letter No.5-5/96-DE dated 02.09.1997 since many allegations and complaints were made regarding the illegal awarding of marks by various officers including the authorities incharge of safeguarding the answer sheets of the examination. An inquiry was conducted and departmental action was initiated against the

departmental officers as well as the candidates who took part in the examination including the applicant. Subsequent to the examination the applicant had been posted to the APS Record Office, Kamptee, Nagpur from 24.12.1996. Subsequently the applicant had returned to Delhi on 11.02.1997 as per the directions of the Vigilance Section. The applicant was discharged from APS on 16.10.1997 and was repatriated to his parent department and he joined as Postal Assistant at Thodupuzha Head Post Office on 28.10.1997. A criminal case was registered against the applicant and 13 others on the basis of the FIR No.413/1997 and the applicant was issued with an order suspending him from service. This order was produced as Annexure A-1. However, no memorandum of charges was issued to the applicant during the first 90 days of his suspension. Subsequently the order of suspension was extended and the subsistence allowance was extended to 50% of the subsistence allowance already issued to him by order dated 21.08.1998. Ultimately the applicant was issued with memorandum of charges on 17.08.1999 on three charges, the allegation being that the applicant has prepared fake answer copies, replacing genuine answer books and got fictitious marks entered in the fake answer books in the tabulation sheets of Delhi Circle through Shri.U.Lakra, Assistant DE Section. The applicant was granted

10 days time to submit his reply to the Annexure A-3 charge sheet and in response and defence dated 28.08.1999 denied the charges in toto and expressed his desire to be heard in person. Even though the trial was pending with the Additional Judicial Magistrate Court, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, the departmental inquiry commenced on 27.07.2000, during which time the applicant was given the opportunity to examine the documents and records specified in the memorandum of charges. It was argued that on perusal of the documents supplied by the inquiry authority it was found that most of the documents were not originals but only photocopies of the records. Therefore, the applicant submitted a representation to the inquiry authority on 14.08.2000 expressing his inability to accept the records perused on 27.07.2000 as most of them were only photocopies of the originals and as per the CCS (CCA) Rules the delinquent official is having the right to examine the originals of the documents at the time of inspection of documents. This is the first ground suggested by the applicant for declaring the proceedings vitiated.

2. The applicant and 7 others filed O.A.No.2322/2000 before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal seeking to direct the respondents to keep in abeyance the departmental inquiry till the completion of the trial in

the criminal case. The above O.A was disposed of along with O.A.No.2679/2000 by a common order dated 02.05.2002 with a direction to the respondents to keep the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant in abeyance in view of the criminal proceedings which are grounded on the same set of facts and circumstances. However, it was made clear that if the Trial Court’s final decision in the criminal case was not handed down within 6 months from the date of the said order, the respondents were at liberty to resume the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law. However, the criminal trial did not get completed within the specified period and the respondents failed to take any steps to continue with the disciplinary proceedings after 6 months. The applicant remained under suspension for more than 4 years and eventually on 19.07.2002 the suspension was revoked. However, no steps were taken to complete the inquiry. Fresh inquiry authority and fresh presenting officer were appointed in the meantime and the departmental inquiry resumed only on 19.01.2009 after almost 7 years from the direction of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal to resume inquiry at the conclusion of 6 months from the date of the order. Only 2 sittings were held during this process for a period of 2 years. Subsequently a fresh inquiry authority was appointed as per memo dated 02.03.2010 and a fresh presiding

officer was also appointed simultaneously. Thus, it is noted that there is an inordinate delay in completion of disciplinary proceedings for more than a decade. Hence, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A.No.603/2011 with a prayer to quash the disciplinary proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay and to make available all service benefits including financial upgradations due to the applicant with effect from the respective date of entitlement and for other reliefs. The O.A was disposed of by order dated 12.10.2011 directing the respondents to finalize the action if any in pursuant to the findings of the inquiry within a period of 4 months from the date of the order. The inquiry against the applicant was completed by the 4th respondent on 01.11.2012 and the applicant was found guilty of the charges levelled against him and was awarded the punishment of reduction of pay by 2 stages for a period of 3 years with effect from 01.11.2012. It was further provided that the increments of the applicant would be withheld during the period and the same would have cumulative effect on his future increments of pay. It is argued that the Annexure A-9(a) Report (inquiry report) was vitiated due to the violation of Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as the disciplinary authority was subordinate to the inquiry authority as well as the presenting officer as also the agreement of the

disciplinary authority while forwarding the inquiry report to the charged officer as provided under the rules. As the disciplinary authority was subordinate to the inquiry authority, it is argued that the procedure of filing objection was a farce exercise. There has been arguments forwarded about the findings of the inquiry authority. However, it is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to go into the factual matrix of the findings of the inquiry authority during the process. The representation was submitted against the findings of the inquiry authority on 10.12.2012 and subsequently on 06.05.2013 to the Director of Postal Services, Central Region, Kochi reiterating the violation of CCS (CCA) Rules in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings. In response the applicant was issued with letter dated 20.01.2014 proposing to enhance his punishment and granting him 10 days time to submit the representation. Detailed representation dated 04.02.2014 pointing out the violation of CCS (CCA) Rules as well as the denial of natural justice by the department in the conduct of the inquiry was submitted. It also alleges prejudice on the part of the inquiry authority. It is also argued that prolonged delay as well as lack of materials, witnesses or evidences to prove the guilt or fault of the applicant vitiated the inquiry. However, subsequently by order dated

02.03.2016 the 3rd respondent confirmed the punishment and rejected the contentions taken by the applicant in the appeal as well as in the Annexure A-13 representation.

3. It is submitted by the applicant that the respondents took almost 4 years to dispose of the appeal preferred by him on 10.11.2012. The applicant was taking part in the trial pursuant to the FIR No.413/1997 registered at Parliament Street Police Station, New Delhi. The final report was submitted by the police after almost a decade and a half of investigation and the case was registered as Criminal Case No.39015/2016 and the trial commenced at Metropolitan Magistrate 06, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. Therefore, the applicant was pre- occupied with to and fro trips to New Delhi to attend the trial as the presence of the accused was not always dispensed through the counsel. The trial continued for almost 12 yeas and the final order was pronounced on 08.10.2018 where the Court acquitted all the accused as none of the allegations was found to be proved. Even the initial complaint filed in the year 1997 could not be proved by the department. A copy of the order was produced as Annexure A-15. Subsequently, the applicant was intimated on 10.01.2020 that his period of suspension

would be treated as non duty for all purposes. It is contended that this amounted to a punishment more than the one imposed in terms of the disciplinary proceedings in Annexure A-9 order proposing to reduce the pay and withhold the increments with cumulative effect. The punishment imposed on the applicant in terms of Annexure A-9 order had already taken away the service benefits of the applicant for almost 17 years and now this order would take away 4 years of service from the continuous service of more than 24 years long career of the applicant to that of a daily wager. The proposed order would affect saving from the salary and promotion up to the pensionary benefits the applicant would receive. The applicant was given 60 days to represent against the order. On 09.03.2020 the representation submitted to the 4th respondent detailing the provisions and instructions wherein the applicant would be entitled to have the period of suspension counted as duty for all purposes. The applicant pointed out that the suspension was ordered not on the contemplation of disciplinary proceedings but on the ground that a criminal case was registered against him. Even though the suspension continued for years after Annexure A-3 charge sheet, the applicant was never issued with orders of suspension on the ground of the disciplinary proceedings. In the Annexure A-2 order enhancing the subsistence

allowance of the applicant it was clearly provided that the suspension was not prolonged due to any reasons attributable to him. Therefore, relying on FR 54 (B)(3) he has requested to treat the period of suspension as on duty for all purposes.

4. It has been argued that due to the Covid 19 pandemic the applicant could not approach the authorities challenging the above order. In the meantime, the 4th respondent issued a Corrigendum to the above mentioned memo on 01.07.2020 correcting the dates of non duty period from 08.05.1998 to 19.07.2002 to 08.05.1998 to 21.07.2002. The applicant filed a review against the order of punishment issued by the department on 14.09.2020 and the revision petition against the appellate order dated 02.03.2016 requesting to quash the entire proceedings on the ground of prolonged inquiry and non filing of original documents at the time of inquiry. The applicant further contended that many of the officers who are part of the inquiry were not suspended even for a day and the disciplinary authority concurring with the findings of the inquiry authority before the submissions of representation by the delinquent official is against Rule 15 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules and prove that the authority acted in a predetermination violating the rules. The applicant

argued that he was not given the opportunity to cross examine the exponents of SE 12, 14, 15, 16 and 19 amounts to denial of natural justice and called in to prove evidential value of SE 14. It has been argued that the respondents authorities acted in pre-determination in the entire conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and the disproportionality in punishment which has been awarded after almost 2 decades from the alleged occurrence. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings for almost 2 decades he was denied financial upgradation in his service due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. The revision petition filed by the applicant was rejected by the 2nd respondent on the ground of delay without considering the merits in spite of the detailed arguments furnished by the applicant.

5. The applicant argues on the basis of certificates and honours produced by him that he is a meritorious and dedicated employee and the entire inquiry report was on the presumption that the applicant being beneficiary of the incident is responsible for the mischief. The applicant further argued on the evidence produced in the inquiry at the time based on which he was held guilty which falls outside the purview of this Tribunal. The applicant, however, argues that the basic tenets of fair trial

as well as the principles of natural justice enshrined in the Constitution as well as the CCS (CCA) Rules had been denied which vitiated the entire proceedings and this had not been considered by the 2nd respondent at the time of rejection of the revision petition solely on the ground of delay. Hence the action was illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

6. The grounds on which the entire process has been challenged under which the applicant is seeking relief are (1) that the applicant who was merely a candidate in the examination was proceeded under Rule 14 inquiry on the basis of a charge sheet which did not provide any specific allegation of misconduct but merely on the surmises of certain officials about his involvement in the tampering of answer sheets without any evidence linking the applicant to the same, (2) that the orders were issued by the 2nd respondent without complying with the principles of natural justice and in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the CCS (CCA) Rules and the Constitution, (3) that the entire procedure was inordinately delayed and that the inquiry was conducted by the superior authority based on the orders of the subordinate, the 4th respondent. The

inquiry report was communicated to the applicant by the 4th respondent disciplinary authority endorsing the findings and the report of the superior inquiry authority, which amounts to the violation of the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules as well as the principles of natural justice. The disciplinary authority had no other alternative than to accept the findings of the inquiry authority being the superior officer. Therefore, rendering the entire process a farce. The delay in handling of the appeal for more than 4 years in violation of the provisions and the rules governing the same.

7. Essentially the argument made by the applicant is that he has suffered for more than 20 years for the only reason that he has participated in the examination conducted by the department. He has argued that passing an order regarding the treatment of the period of suspension of 4 years and 3 months as non duty for all purposes after 8 years of Annexure A-9 penalty order is in violation of his fundamental right and is illegal. It has also been argued that he applicant was honourably acquitted by the Criminal Court after the investigation and trial. The applicant also questioned the dismissal of the review petition solely on the ground of delay.

8. The respondents have filed a reply and argued traversing all the averments contained in the O.A and the arguments made by the applicant. To the specific contention that non production of original records at the time of inspection, it is pointed out that the applicant is very well aware that the original records were produced before the Court owing to the criminal case registered in this regard. The prosecution had produced the attested copies of the original documents before the departmental inquiry and this is not unusual. The initiation of major penalty proceedings on the applicant was based on the detailed criminal complaint which has been under investigation by the Delhi Police and the CVC’s advise. It is further submitted that the delay in disciplinary proceedings and holding of inquiry was primarily due to unavoidable administrative reasons which is apparent from the submissions made by the applicant who is aware of it. Primarily the cause for delay was because the process had been started and stopped multiple times and because it is a complex matter involving many officers all over India and witnesses were very high officers and the examination was of high officers. If only an officer below that of a Superintendent of Post Offices was appointed as IO/PO then the ASP would be the IO which would have been problematic. Therefore, although the Superintendent of Post Offices was appointing

authority he was not subordinate to the IO/PO in any way and the witnesses were also Group ‘A’ officers, there was no bar in the rules and no prejudice were caused by this action. It is also pointed out that no objection was raised at any point of time regarding the bias which would have been a fundamental objection if it was a genuine cause of action and not a contention being raised only at this stage. In so far as the photocopies of the documents is concerned, all the originals were in court custody. He is an accused and has access to these documents and considering hearing of the criminal case it is not the case that he has not seen the original and therefore contends that attested copies are not true copies of the originals. The question which should seriously be asked over here is what is the prejudice which is caused? Here there is an attempt to draw very nuanced distinction between certified copies of the original and attested photocopies saying that the attestation does not amount to certification. Is it the case that documents were not true copies? That is not the allegation here. Here it is a technicality which is being raised. The contention of violation of principles of natural justice which is being argued over here is primarily regarding the prime accused in the criminal case Shri.U.Lakra. It is pointed out that it is a privilege of the prosecution to pick and choose witnesses and the applicant was free

to call Shri.U.Lakra as a defence witness. If the evidence was so integral to his case, it is a right which has not been exercised very consciously by the applicant.

9. The charges which are being raised are very grave and involve moral turpitude. The disciplinary authority endorsing the inquiry authority’s findings has been argued as prejudicing the mind of the disciplinary authority. It is simply that the rules provided that where disciplinary authority disagree he has to make it clear in the endorsement with reasons and here per contra agreement has been stated and it is a normal communication which does not mean he has taken a decision. It is merely a part of the process. It is primarily contended that the proceedings have gone on an extremely lackadaisical fashion and had been spread over a period of more than 12 years with no sittings of departmental proceedings conducted for a period of 9 years. While this being true, it should be noted that there was a Writ Petition which is filed in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as well as the CAT case which caused delay. Further, there were multiple inquiry authorities and changes of inquiry officer and presenting officer due to the fact that officers had been transferred or superannuated and this caused the inquiry

proceedings to have re-started multiple times. One issue which needs to be addressed over here is that the applicant’s order was passed in the year 2016 and the O.A was filed in 2021. The question which needs to be addressed is what is the cause of action. The issue which has provoked the filing of the O.A appears to be the treatment of the suspension period. There has been an attempt to convolute the regularisation of the suspension period with the disciplinary proceedings which would actually be a separate cause of action over here instead of which a single O.A which seeks to cover both the issues, which is not proper.

10. One of the arguments which has been taken is that the suspension was linked to the criminal case and there was no clear connection between the suspension period with the disciplinary proceedings initiated and that when the suspension was linked to the criminal case and the criminal case itself fell at the time of adjudication then the cause for suspension cease to sustain and therefore should be regularized with restoration of all benefits. However, it should be noted that the suspension order was linked to the criminal case and the consequential departmental action linked to the criminal case. The question which needs to be asked is when the suspension order was already in existence,

can a fresh suspension order be issued on the same set of facts for the same case for two different activities. The fact of the acquittal in the criminal case will not take away the cause of action from a departmental inquiry because the rules of evidence in criminal case and departmental inquiry are substantially different and this Tribunal is not the forum for raising issues on facts. The regularization of suspension period was not an issue which could be concluded by the disciplinary authorities and can be raised after that. Other reliefs is not maintainable at this distance of time which the appellate authority crystalized many years back. Where the allegation of prejudice is made, this has to be clearly established. There has been no evidence produced to establish that prejudice has happened. This is not the correct forum for examining factual matrix of evidence. The argument that there has been non application of mind ever since the communication of the inquiry report which was sent with a positive recommendation, it is to be examined with reference to the DoP&T instructions on the subject. DoP&T instruction No.11012/12/2010 (Estt.)A dated 12.11.2010 says that under Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules only disagreement should be communicated and nothing should be communicated which can be construed to mean that the disciplinary authority is biased.

11. Let us first examine the issue of non service of documents. In terms of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Bidyut Kumar Mitra & Ors., reported in 2011 (1) SCR 298, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has very categorically held that complaint of violation of procedural provisions ie., non supply of documents should be examined from the point of view of prejudice viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer or employee in defending himself properly and effectively. It was incumbent on the respondents to plead and prove the prejudice caused by the non supply of the documents. Here, unlike in the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order cited, it is not a fact that the defence has not raised the plea up to this point. The defence has in fact raised this issue from the time of defence plea onwards. The question which needs to be answered is what is the prejudice caused? It is not the case of the applicant that certified photocopies of the documents were not examined by them in the Court at the time of criminal inquiry. It is also not a fact that the applicant themselves did not have access to these documents as these were documents examined by the applicant at the time of criminal inquiry in the Court Room and therefore, not in a position to point out any discrepancy with the documents supplied to them in the disciplinary

proceedings and in the criminal proceedings. Therefore, this argument will not hold water here.

12. The next question to be examined is on the question of prejudice. The only reason for prejudice alleged is because the appointing authority in this inquiry was junior to the inquiry officer and the presenting officer and would, therefore, influence the disciplinary authority by virtue of being superior officer. In case of allegation of bias it should be noted that the question of bias is an issue which has to be actively proved by the person by whom the allegation is made. Since this was an inquiry which was very large and scope and required the examination of very senior Group ‘A’ officers as witnesses and spanned the length and breadth of the country, in the scope of this inquiry it had been determined that a sufficiently senior officer needed to be both the presenting officer and inquiry officer, which is not a contention which has been taken out by the applicant. In any case, the appointing authority for disciplinary proceedings is determined by not the nature and scope of inquiry but by the rank of the officer being inquired against and that is being statutorily fixed cannot be changed. The balance of convenience in appointing an inquiry officer as a technical matter would not determine the prejudice in

this case, unless the prejudice is actively established. Given the facts that in fact the inquiry officer and presenting officer changed multiple times, the mere rank of the officer conducting the inquiry cannot determine prejudice. Therefore, this allegation also will not hold water.

13. Further, there is no statutory requirement regarding the relative ranking of the appointing authority, inquiry authority, inquiry officer or the presenting officer and since there is no prescription, there can be no violation. Hence this charge does not hold water.

14. As regards the contention regarding violation of principles of natural justice because of non cross examination of prime accused as a witness, it should be noted that it is the privilege of the prosecution to pick and choose the witnesses and officer Shri.U.Lakra was a prime accused could have certainly been called as a defence witness, if his testimony was vital to the conduct of the case. Not having done so at that stage this cannot be cited as an argument over here.

15. One of the fundamental arguments taken in this case is that the disciplinary authority had by recording agreement with the findings in

the inquiry report at the time of communicating the same to the applicant demonstrated bias. DoP&T Instruction under Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules states that only disagreement should be communicated. In fact there is subsequent instruction that the communication of the inquiry report should not result in communicating anything which could be construed to mean that the disciplinary authority is biased. The argument of bias in the disciplinary proceedings where the disciplinary order has been communicated in 2012 and bias has not been raised right up to the stage of revision and is now being raised at a point of time when treatment of the period of suspension is being addressed in 2020 on the ground that it is a continuing cause of action does not hold water. The argument of bias should always be established in a positive manner and not by inference. There is nothing in the argument which indicate or establish bias in a positive manner and therefore this contention does not hold water.

16. While arguments made by the applicant went down the factum based on which the proceedings were initiated, it is beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to go into the factual matrix of the disciplinary proceedings or the correctness or otherwise of the penalty,

which, in any case is not one of the pleadings in this case. The two arguments which have been raised are linked to the suspension of the applicant from 08.05.1998 and its consequential revocation 4 years subsequently and the treatment of the period of suspension by the Anneure A-16 order in 2020. The argument taken with regard to the suspension order is that the suspension was linked to the filing of the criminal case and the Annexure A-16 order refers only to the departmental proceedings and that as per Rule 10 (5)(c) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be modified or revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate and since that was not done only the criminal proceedings should be referenced and as per the order of the Hon’ble Delhi Court of 08.10.2018 the applicant was acquitted.

17. However, it is to be noted that both the criminal and the disciplinary proceedings are linked to the same action of the applicant as regards his involvement in examination. In the matter regarding misconduct when appearing for an examination referenced, that cannot be the position that there can be two separate suspension order for the

same period for the same action. Therefore, an attempt to segregate the two by a technicality does not appear to be correct. Acquittal of the applicant in the criminal case in 2018 does not take away the factum of penalty imposed on the applicant in the disciplinary proceedings on 01.11.2012 and since the Annexure A-16 order resulted in the merger of the two separate proceedings, the order of suspension remains valid. Now we need to examine whether we need to interfere with the treatment of the period of suspension. There is nothing in the argument taken above which would establish that the position taken by the department was unjustified. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with that decision.

18. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the O.A is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dated this the 31st day of December, 2024) V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER asp

List of Annexures in O.A.No.180/00099/2021

1. Annexure A-1 – A copy of the Order issued as per Memo No.B1/29/IPO/Exam/96 dated 08.05.1998 issued by the 4th respondent.

2. Annexure A-2 – A copy of the Memo No.B1/29/IPC(Exam)/96 dated 21.08.1998 issued by the 4th respondent.

3. Annexure A-3 – A copy of the Memo No.B1/29/IPO Exam/Dlg dated 17.08.1999 along with the Corrigendum issued as per Memo No.B1/29/IPO/Exam/Dlg dated 22.03.2000 issued on behalf of the 4th respondent.

4. Annexure A-4 – A copy of the Statement of defence dated 28.08.1999 submitted by the applicant to the 4th respondent through Postmaster, Thodupuzha HO.

5. Annexure A-5 – A copy of the Daily Order Sheet No.1-36/99-DI dated 27.07.2000 issued by the Inquiry Authority.

6. Annexure A-6 – A copy of the Representation dated 14.08.2000 submitted by the applicant before the Inquiry Authority.

7. Annexure A-7 – A copy of the Order No.B1/29/IPO/Exam/96 dated 19.07.2002 issued by the 4th respondent.

8. Annexure A-8 – A copy of the Order dated 12.10.2011 in O.A.No.603 of 2011 of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.

9. Annexure A-9 – A copy of the Memo No.B1/29/IPO/Exam/Dlg dated 01.11.2012 issued by the 4th respondent.

10. Annexure A-9(a) – A copy of the Enquiry Report dated 04.10.2012 forwarded to the applicant by the 4th respondent by Letter No.B1/29/IPO- Exam/Dlg dated 09.10.2012.

11. Annexure A-10 – A copy of the Representation dated 10.12.2012 submitted by the applicant to the Director of Postal Services, Central Region, Kochi without enclosures.

12. Annexure A-11 – A copy of the Request dated 06.05.2013 submitted by the applicant before the Director of Postal Services, Central Region, Kochi without enclosures.

13. Annexure A-12 – A copy of the Memo No.ST/7-6/13 dated 20.01.2014 issued on behalf of the 3rd respondent to the applicant.

14. Annexure A-13 – A copy of the Representation dated 04.02.2014 submitted by the applicant before the 3rd respondent.

15. Annexure A-14 – A copy of the Memo No.ST/7-6/2013 dated 02.03.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent to the applicant.

16. Annexure A-15 – A copy of the Order dated 08.10.2018 in Cr.Case No.39015/2016 of the Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate – 06(NDD), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

17. Annexure A-16 – A copy of the Memo No.B/267/III dated 10.01.2020 issued by the 4th respondent.

18. Annexure A-17 – A copy of the Representation dated 09.03.2020 submitted by the applicant to the 4th respondent.

19. Annexure A-18 – A copy of the Memo No.B/267/III dated 01.07.2020 issued by the 4th respondent to the applicant.

20. Annexure A-19 – A copy of the Revision Petition dated 14.09.2020 submitted before the 2nd respondent through proper channel (without the enclosures).

21. Annexure A-20 – A copy of the Letter No.VIG/RP/NH/5/2020 dated 06.10.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent to the applicant.

22. Annexure A-21 – A copy of the Representation dated 19.10.2020 submitted by the applicant before the 2nd respondent.

23. Annexure A-22 – A copy of the Order No.VIG/RP/NH/5/2020 dated 23.11.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent to the applicant.

24. Annexure A-23 – A copy of the Certificate received by the applicant from the Department of Posts.

25. Annexure A-24 – A copy of the Certificate received by the applicant from the Microsoft Corporation.

26. Annexure A-25 – A copy of the Certificate received by the applicant from the Microsoft Corporation.

27. Annexure A-26 – A copy of the Certificate received by the applicant from the ET & T Corporation Limited, New Delhi.

28. Annexure A-27 – A copy of the Report of the Inquiry Authority dated 04.10.2012 forwarded to the applicant by the 4th respondent vide Letter No.B1/29/IPO-Exam/Dlg dated 09.10.2012.

29. Annexure A-28 – A copy of the O.M.No.22011/4/2007-Estt.(D) dated 28.04.2014 issued by the DoPT.

30. Annexure A-29 – A copy of the DoPT O.M.F.No.11012/12/2010- Estt.(A) dated 12.11.2010 issued on behalf of the 1st respondent.

31. Annexure R-1 – A copy of the Letter No.11012/17/2013-Estt(A) dated 02.01.2014 of Ministry of Personnel, Pensions & Public Grievances.

32. Annexure R-2 – A copy of the Postal Directorate Letter No.C- 11011/01/2001-VP dated 26.09.2014.

33. Annexure R-3 – A copy of the list of penalties mentioned under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. _______________________________