Rajesh vs DEPARTMENT OF POSTS on 26 October 2026

1. Respondents have preferred MA No.3388/2026 for placing on record short reply. Short reply is taken on record. M.A. is allowed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides for interim relief, inter-alia, direction to respondents to keep the department inquiry in abeyance as continuation of inquiry is likely to cause prejudice to defence of the applicant in the pending trial proceedings which is based on same set of facts, allegations and having common witnesses.

3. The applicant has sought quashment of impugned letter dated 08.10.2026 (Annexure A-25) to the extent it directs examination of common material witness Sh. Sushil Kumar, SIDS, Kurukshetra in departmental inquiry before his examination in pending trial proceedings.

4. Factual matrix of the case in brief are that applicant while working as Sub Post Master (SPM) Rajaund Sub Post Office Kurukshetra is charged with misappropriation of Government money amounting to Rs.1,00,72,794/- on the allegations of opening saving bank account of ‘Rajesh’ without obtaining KYC or account opening form. He allegedly deposited lacs of rupees in accounts as well as transferred in his personal salary account at Kaithal and savings account at Gurgaon without accounting for the amounts in the Government/SO accounts of Rajaund S.O. He withdrew these amounts from SB accounts at various post offices within Kurukshetra Division. It has also been alleged that applicant made fraudulent withdrawal from SB accounts of public by forging their signatures and did not deposit money taken from depositors into their accounts. An amount of Rs. 24,00,000/- has been recovered from applicant, however amount of Rs.76,72,794/- is still remains to recover. An FIR No.126 dated 02.06.2022 was also registered and after investigation, the trial is going on. Simultaneously, charge sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has also been issued to applicant vide memo dated 18.03.2025 and disciplinary proceedings are underway. Vide impugned communication, the applicant has been directed to appear before Inquiry Officer on 27.10.2026, wherein one Rahul Sharma and Sushil Kumar are to be examined as witness.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent department has cited 19 witnesses in the disciplinary proceedings whereas the prosecution has cited 7 witnesses in trial proceedings. There are three common witnesses in both proceedings. Out of these three common witnesses, two witnesses have already been examined and third common witness Sushil Kumar has been summoned for recording of his statement. He further submits that the learned trial Court has bound down said Sushil Kumar prosecution witness for 29.01.2027 to be examined as prosecution witness.

6. Learned counsel for respondents has opposed contention of the applicant and submits that keeping departmental proceedings in abeyance indefinitely will allow the applicant to continue in service without decision on charges of misconduct, which are grave in nature.

7. I have head contentions of both the sides and perused material available on record.

8. Out of total 19 witnesses, 15 witnesses have been examined by department in departmental inquiry. Among the remaining 4 witnesses, only one witness i.e. Sushil Kumar is a common witness, who is bound down by trial Court for 29.01.2027. Having considered facts and contentions of both the sides, it is directed that the respondents may proceed with the recording of statement of remaining three witnesses, however, examination of witness Sushil Kumar may be deferred till 29.01.2027 and his examination may be done after recording of his evidence by the trial Court. In case, the applicant seeks adjournment in trial proceedings on 29.01.2027, the respondents may proceed further with the recording of statement of witness.

9. Respondents are granted three weeks’ time to file detailed reply.

10. List this matter for consideration on 18.12.2026.

Suresh Kumar Batra Member (J)

Kamla Rawat ( court master )