VENUKUMAR P vs D/o Post on 30 October 2026

O R D E R

Per: Mr. Braj Mohan Agrawal, Administrative Member

The applicant is a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer (GDSMD) under Postal Department, who was removed from engagement w.e.f. 10.04.2015 by Annexure A-2 order. As per the applicant, while working as a GDS, he was placed under put off on 12.4.2010 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. On 27.6.2012, an adhoc disciplinary authority was appointed, but the charge sheet was issued on 7.8.2013. An enquiry report was submitted on 28.1.2015, and Final order of removal from engagement was passed on 10.4.2015. The applicant filed a revision petition on 29.9.2015, as he could not file appeal on account of extreme financial stress. The revisional authority passed Annexure A-4 orders on 2.5.2016 rejecting the revision petition and confirmed the penalty, in effect, after 6 years of being placed under put off, the disciplinary proceedings concluded. Aggrieved by the orders of penalty the present O.A. has been filed.

2. The charge against the applicant is as follows:- "That the said P. Venukumar, GDSMD (POD) Kodithookiyakunnu B.O. while working as GDSMD Kodithookiyakunnu during March 2010 treated Nedumangad MDG Money Order No.1868/55 dated 23.03.2010 for Rs.500/- and No. 1868/56 dated 23.03.2010 for Rs.500/- and payable to G.Sudhakaran, Kunnumpurath Veedu, Cheruvalam, K.T.Kunnu.P.О., Kallara, Thiruvananthapuram as paid without actually paying the value of money orders to the correct payee and without obtaining signature of the actual payee of the said money order.

By his above Act Sri. P. Venukumar violated Rule 121(3), 127(1) and 129(1) of the Postal Manual Volume VI Part III 6th Edition corrected up to 30th June, 1986 and misappropriated the said money order amount violating Rule 216 of Postal Manual Volume V and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as envisaged in Rule 21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011.”

3. The applicant denied the charge levelled again him. An inquiry was held and Annexure A-1 inquiry report dated 28.01.2015, proving the charge against the applicant was submitted. A copy of the inquiry report was sent to the applicant on 02.03.2015 asking him to submit written submission, if any. The applicant submitted his representation. Thereon, Annexure A-2 order dated 10.04.2015 imposing penalty of removal from engagement was issued. The applicant did not file an appeal, but filed a revision petition dated 29.09.2015, Annexure A-3, which came to be rejected by Annexure A-4 order dated 02.05.2016.

There is only one charge against the applicant i.e. that the applicant failed to effect payment of money orders and treated the money orders as paid, without actually effecting payment.

4. The applicant submits that in the instant case, it took 27 months from the date of put off to the issuance of charge sheet. It can thus be seen that the instructions of the Government to complete proceedings against GDS under put off within 3 months is completely violated. It took nearly six years to complete the process of inquiry upto revisional order. The applicant was placed under put off on 12.04.2010 and which continued upto 10.04.2015. This continued and prolonged put off is against Rules and is against all norms of natural justice. The Director General, Posts instructions regarding review of put off duty cases have not been followed. Due to financial crisis on account of non-increase of ex-gratia for 5 years, he could not take part in the disciplinary proceedings, more specifically the sitting dated 16.10.2014.

5. Primarily, the followings grounds have been taken by the applicant in his pleadings:-

(i) Non-enhancement of ex-gratia- Had the ex-gratia been enhanced, the applicant would not have been in financial difficulty, which prevented him from attending crucial sittings of the disciplinary proceedings.

(ii) It is mandatory to provide submission of statement of defence after the close of prosecution case. This valuable right of defence has been dispensed with by the enquiry authority.

(iii) No notice was issued to the applicant fixing the time, date and venue for submission of statement of defence. Neither was any recordings made in the previous enquiry proceedings, regarding the date, time and venue for submission of statement of defence.

(iv) Self examination of the delinquent employee has not been held in the present case. In terms of Rule 17 of CCS(CCA) Rules, which is followed in the matter of enquiry proceedings in respect of GDS, self examination of delinquent employee is mandatory.

6. Aggrieved by Annexure A-2 and A-4 orders, the applicant has filed this Original Application and sought the following reliefs:-

(i) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A2 and A-4 and set aside Annexures A-2 and A4

(ii) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A1 and set aside Annexure A1

(i) Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant back to service with all consequential benefits

7. The respondents filed their reply statement and contend that they have scrupulously followed all instructions and rules in conducting the inquiry and all reasonable opportunities have been given to the applicant to present his case in the inquiry. It is settled law that the role of judicial review in departmental inquiry proceedings is limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the decision reported in the case of Union of India vs. K.G. Sony {2006 SCC(L&S) 1568} that punishment being not one shocking to the conscience of the court, to interfere therewith is not called for and that judicial review is confined to the decision-making process.

In the instant case, the applicant was removed from service after conducting a detailed inquiry under Rule-10 of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. The Inquiring Authority(IA) submitted its report on 28.01.2015 holding the lone charge against the applicant as proved. A copy of the report of the IA was made available to the applicant and he submitted his representation on 13.03.2015 to the third respondent. After going through the inquiry report and connected records, the disciplinary authority ordered removal of the applicant from engagement with immediate effect vide Annexure A-2 proceedings. The applicant chose to prefer revision petition vide Annexure A3 before the 1st respondent without filing any appeal against the order of removal to the appellate authority. The same was rejected vide Annexure A-4 order by the competent authority after duly taking into consideration all the averments raised by the applicant in Annexure A -3.

8. A Presenting Officer was appointed to present the case on behalf of the department and the applicant utilized the services of an Assisting Government Servant(AGS). It is submitted that it was a fair and impartial inquiry and not a biased and one sided proceedings, as averred by the applicant. In the instant case, the applicant had not raised the issue of bias during the entire proceedings. Having participated in the proceedings without any demur, the applicant is estopped from raising such issues at this stage, after knowing that the decision has gone against him.

9. The respondents further contend that the venue of the inquiry was shifted to a place convenient to the applicant but even after that, the applicant employed dilatory tactics to scuttle the inquiry on one reason or the other. The applicant had averred that the deposition of PW - 6 is the result of extreme threat from the Presenting Officer and the ex-parte statement of PW

6 was taken without being subjected to cross examination. In this regard, it is submitted by the respondents that the examination of PW- 6 was done on 16.10.2014. The IA had informed the applicant well in advance in writing that the inquiry would be held ex parte if the applicant failed to attend the inquiry. The AGS was also present during the entire sitting held on 16.10.2014 including the examination of PW-6, the crucial witness. There is no dispute that the AGS was engaged by the applicant to assist him in presenting his case. The AGS had not raised any objection regarding the examination of PW-6 Therefore, the argument that the applicant was denied the right of cross examination of crucial witness is devoid of merit. The applicant has further contended that there was no complaint from the payee of the money order i.e. PW – 6. This will not hold water in view of the fact that PW- 6 himself attended the inquiry and deposed before the IA regarding the facts of the case, affirming genuineness of the complaint and non-receipt of amounts by him as per Money Orders.

10. The respondents also submit that no proceedings were conducted during the 3rd and 4th sittings due to the absence of the applicant. On the other hand, the IA had given due consideration to the inconvenience pointed out by the applicant and shifted the venue of the inquiry to Kallara, a place

convenient to the applicant, from the 5th sitting onwards. Therefore, the arguments of the applicant in this regard are devoid of merit.

11. Regarding delay in issuing of Charge Sheet, it is submitted by respondents that past work verification of the entire monetary transactions involving the applicant had to be carried out as part of investigation, which is a time consuming process involving collection of evidence by contacting the payees, questioning and recording statements from payees etc., Charge sheet could be issued only after completion of the investigation as explained above. However, the delay in issuing the charge sheet and finalizing the inquiry had in no way hampered the opportunities of the applicant to effectively defend his case nor contributed to the imposition of penalty. Having failed to prove his innocence, the applicant is coming up with baseless averments.

12. Contending the averment of the applicant that no notice was issued to the applicant fixing the time, date and venue for submission of statement of defence, respondents submit that this averment is baseless in view of the fact that the IA had clearly stated in the proceedings dated 16.10.2014 that if the applicant desired to be self-examined, the same might be intimated to the IA within 10 days. The AGS, who was present throughout the inquiry dated

16.10.2014, did not raise any objection at that point of the inquiry.

As per Rule 14(16) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, when the case for the disciplinary authority is closed, the charged Government servant(CGS) shall be required to state his defence orally or in writing, as he may prefer. The CGS shall be formally called upon to state his defence. It is up to the CGS to make or not to make a defence statement. The IA cannot compel the applicant to state his defence, if the applicant does not wish so. If the applicant considered submission of statement of defence as necessary to prove his innocence, nothing prevented him from submitting the same before the the IA.

13. Shri Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil Ravi, learned Standing Counsel were heard at length on 17.09.2026 and perused the records with their help.

14. We find that the applicant was on put off duty on the complaint of Shri G. Sudhakaran, who was not paid amounts in two Money Orders, but were treated to be paid by the applicant. Following a preliminary inquiry with respect of past work verification of money transactions involving the applicant, he was issued with Charge Sheet dated 29.11.2012 under Rule 10 of Gramin

Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, following which an inquiry was held, Presenting Officer was nominated by the Department and the applicant engaged AGS of his choice.

15. It is evident from the proceedings that inquiry was held on multiple sittings and venue of the inquiry was also shifted to Kallara from the 5th sitting onwards to suit the convenience of the applicant and no proceedings were conducted during 3rd and 4th sitting due to absence of the applicant. The payee of the money order, Shri Sudhakaran has himself identified exhibit D-1 as letter of complaint given by him before the sub-divisional authority and has deposed the same before the IA. Therefore, genuineness of the complaint is well established.

The payee Shri Sudhakaran has himself deposed that he did not receive the money orders, which were treated to be paid by the applicant. As the complainant during the inquiry identified the statement and deposed that he is the complainant before the sub divisional ASP, the conclusion drawn by the IA is found to be logical and well-reasoned.

16. The argument of the applicant that he could not examine the crucial prosecution witness No.6 , Shri Sudhakaran does not hold water as the IA had issued prior notice regarding inquiry to be held on 16.10.2015 and his AGS, nominated by him was present during the proceeding.

17. While it may not be necessary to follow the provisions of Rules 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 literally, in the case of ED agents as they are governed by separate and specific rules i.e. Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. However, it is desirable to follow the provisions of CCS(CCA) Rules in spirit. Here, we find that reasonable opportunities were afforded to the applicant to defend himself including change of venue of inquiry as per his convenience, nomination of AGS of his choice, reasonable opportunities of defence during inquiry proceedings. On the crucial date of examination i.e. 16.10.2015, the applicant chose himself not to attend the inquiry proceedings, though intimated in advance by IA. The AGS was available throughout during the inquiry proceedings on 16.10.2015 and has signed the proceedings. The prosecution witness No.6 was available for cross examination.

18. We also note that IA has clearly stated on 16.10.2015 that if the petitioner desires to be self examined by the IA, the same may be intimated to the IA within 10 days. Thereafter, it was upto the applicant to make or not to make a defence statement. If the applicant considered statement of defence as necessary to prove his innocence, nothing prevented him from submitting the same before the IA.

19. The plea of the applicant that complaint letter from G. Sudhakaran, the payee of MO was not a genuine document is untenable. During the inquiry proceedings, the document has been identified by the complainant himself. Hence, the authenticity of the document has been proved beyond any doubt and the averments of the applicant in this regard are baseless. The complainant has deposed himself that he has not received amounts under MOs, thereby proving the lone charge framed against the applicant.

20. The IA submitted the inquiry report dated 28.01.2015 and copy of the inquiry report has been made available to the applicant. Thereon, he made representation, taking into account his representation and documents on record, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of removal from engagement with effect from 10.04.2015 by a speaking and detailed order (Annexure A-2). The applicant did not submit an appeal against Annexure A-2 order but preferred a revision petition, Annexure A-3 dated 29.09.2015. His revision petition has been rejected by detailed and speaking order (Annexure A-4) dated 02.05.2016 covering all his pleas in his representation.

Contention of the applicant regarding increase in the amount of ex- gratia is not connected with instant proceedings. That would be a separate cause of grievance, for which the applicant could have approached authorities concerned or this Tribunal at appropriate time.

21. We note the following observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court’s in the case of Shri Parma Nanda Vs State of Haryana and others [1989 (2) Supreme Court Cases 177] that : "The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or Competent Authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse (emphasis supplied)".

The above observation of the Apex Court is squarely applicable in the instant case. In the present case, charges have been proven beyond doubt. No procedural irregularity has been established in disciplinary proceedings, which might have vitiated it.

22. It is specific case of breach of public trust. The public at large repose faith in the Postal Department for the delivery of money by way of Money Order in a bonafide manner. Drawing from the following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Manger, UPSRTC, Etawah Vs

Hoti Lal (CA No. 5984 of 2000): "if the charged employee holds a position where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trust-worthiness is must and unexceptionable (emphasis supplied)".

we cannot have any misplaced sympathy with the applicant.

In view of above judicial observations and findings, we find no merit in the Original Application, accordingly the OA is dismissed. No costs. (Dated the 30th October, 2026)

BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL JUSTICE K. HARIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

va

Annexures OA/180/01035/2016

Annexure A-1- True copy of the enquiry report dated 28.01.2015 submitted by the Assistant Superintendent & Inquiry Authority Annexure A-2- True copy of the order No.F/ASP/K.T. Kunnu dated 10.04.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent Annexure A-3-True copy of revision petition dated 29.09.2015 submitted by the applicant to the 1st respondent Annexure A-4- True copy of the Order No.VIG/RP/2/PV/51/2015 dated 02.05.2016 issued by the 1st respondent *******