Central Administrative Tribunal
K Siva Prasad vs POST AP CIRCLE on 28 October 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA/020/813/2026
HYDERABAD, this the 28th day of October, 2026
HON’BLE Mr. MANISH GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE Mr. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
K. Siva Prasad s/o Late K. Narayana,
Aged about 47 years, Occ: Postal Assistant, (SBCO), Department of Posts, Kurnool Region, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.
R/o H.No.86/425-14, Shantinagar,
NGO’s Colony, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. P.S. Rajasekhar
for Mr. J. Jaya Prasad Thomas)
Vs
1. Union of India, Department of Posts, Government of India, Represented by its Director General of Posts, Dak Bhavan, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Andhra Pradesh Circle, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-520013.
3. Postmaster General, Kurnool Region, Andhra Pradesh Circle, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh-518002.
4. Director Postal Services & Disciplinary Authority, Kurnool Region, Andhra Pradesh Circle, o/o Postmaster General, Kurnool Region, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh-518002.
5. The Superintendent of Post offices, Kurnool Division, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh-518001.
… Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. A. Ram Mohan, Sr. PC for CG)
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER=b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, E=
Location:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member)
The instant O.A. is filed by the applicant, seeking the following relief: “Hence in view of the above it is prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal in the interest of justice be pleased to call for the records relating to and connected to the Proceedings vide Memo No.INV/R-14/KSP/2015/II dated at Kurnool-2 the 30.09.2026 issued by the respondent no.4 and quash or set aside the same by holding it as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the rights guaranteed to the applicant under articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and contrary to law and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble tribunal may deem it fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, Mr. P.S. Rajasekhar, proxy counsel for the applicant, submits that the applicant, a Postal Assistant (SBCO) at Kurnool, was made accused No.3 in a CBI case over a fraud at the Proddatur sub-office, though he only accompanied the Accounts Officers during inspections. He was acquitted on 08.04.2022, and the judgment has attained finality. Despite the Inquiry Officer’s report that the charges were not proved, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Respondent No.4, by the impugned order dated 30.09.2026, reduced the applicant’s pay by two stages for five years and ordered recovery of Rs.1,07,70,000/-. The applicant filed an appeal against the impugned order on 05.10.2026 before Respondent No.3, which is pending. Learned counsel submits that the order is arbitrary and illegal, as the proceedings were delayed, documents were not supplied, and the disagreement note was issued without hearing the applicant, violating Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution. DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER=b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, E=
Location:
3. Learned counsel further submits that, since the amount is huge, the recovery may continue for up to 20 years. Therefore, he prays for stay of the recovery, subject to the outcome of the appeal before the Appellate Authority.
4. Mr. A. Ram Mohan, learned Senior Panel Counsel, appears on behalf of the respondents on receipt of advance notice and opposes the relief sought in the O.A.
5. Considering the limited prayer made and that the appeal dated 05.10.2026 is pending before the Appellate Authority, we are of the view that no prejudice is caused to the respondents if the recovery is kept in abeyance till disposal of the appeal of the applicant. The Appellate Authority i.e. Respondent No.3 is accordingly directed to consider and dispose of the appeal dated 05.10.2026 by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. The appeal ought to be decided preferably within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till then, the recovery ordered vide Proceedings Memo No.INV/R-14/KSP/2015/II dated 30.09.2026 shall be kept in abeyance.
6. The O.A. is disposed of at the admission stage in the aforesaid terms. It is needless to mention that the merits of the case have not been gone into. Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of. No order as to costs.
(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) (MANISH GARG) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/pv/ DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER=b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, E=
Location: