Suresh Kumar Pandey vs Union Of India on 27 October 2026

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi.

2. Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Dak Bhawan, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

3. Director Postal Services, Allahabad Circle, Dak Bhawan, Allahabad.

4. Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Pratapgarh Division, Pratapgarh.

..…..Respondents By Advocate: Shri Raj Kumar Singh

ORDER (ORAL) Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to punishment, the applicant has sought following reliefs: “(a) Issue an order, direction quashing the impugned order dated 31.03.2017, contained in Annexure No. A-1, passed by respondent no. 4 and impugned appellate order dated 21.11.2019 contained as Annexure No. A-2 passed by respondent no. 3 with all consequential benefits of service.

(b) Issue an order, direction and command to the respondents restore the original pay of the applicant with arrears of pay and other consequential benefits.

(c) Issue an order, direction and command to the respondents to return Rs.8,580/- deposited by applicant under protest and under the direction given by the respondent no. 4.

(d) Issue such other order/direction which may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(e) Allow the Original Application with cost against the respondents in view of the facts and circumstances, legal provisions and grounds raised in the application.”

2.1 The facts of the case are that the applicant, while working as Postal Assistant in main Post Office of Pratapgarh, was proceeded against departmentally under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 [CCS(CCA) Rules, hereafter] with the issue of charge sheet dated 21.10.2005 containing four articles of charges. The first charge related to causing loss of Rs. 3,900 by tampering with records and making less payment to the investor in Kisan Vikas Patra (Jagpati Devi). The second charge was for causing loss of Rs. 230 by tampering with records and making less payment to the investor (Shiv Kumari Ojha). The third charge was for initial misappropriation of interest amount of Rs. 2,650 and for its payment to the investor (Ramesh Bahadur Singh and his wife Prakash Devi) after publication of irregularities in the newspaper Amar Ujala on 16.04.2004. The fourth charge was for causing loss of Rs. 1,740 by misappropriating the amount of interest payable to the investor (Bittan). On conclusion of the ensuing enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for two years upon the applicant vide order dated 31.10.2007 and the appeal preferred by the applicant was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 10.03.2008. 2.2 The applicant challenged the orders dated 31.10.2007 and 10.03.2008 of the respondents in OA No. 296 of 2008 whereupon this Tribunal, vide judgment and order dated 12.11.2014, observed that the entire enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner; this Tribunal set aside the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and remitted the matter to the enquiry office for conduct of the enquiry and submission of enquiry report to the disciplinary authority. 2.3 In the fresh enquiry report dated 30.03.2016, all four charges against the applicant were found proved partly. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by two stages for three years upon the applicant vide order dated 31.03.2017. The appellate authority rejected the appeal submitted by the applicant vide order dated 10.03.2008, issued show cause notice to the applicant and enhanced the punishment to reduction of pay by three stages till the applicant’s retirement on 31.07.2023 vide order dated 21.11.2019. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The first contention of the applicant is that the documents listed at S. No. 16 and 19 of the charge sheet as well as 18 additional documents demanded by the applicant were not supplied to him during the enquiry. His second contention is out of the four investors, only Smt Bittan appeared in the enquiry and stated that she had received all the amount and the other three investors did not appear; that out of the three remaining investors who did not appear in the enquiry, Smt Jagpati had died but she had submitted application dated 13.09.2004 that she had received the amount due on maturity; that Smt Shiv Kumari had deposed in the earlier enquiry that she had received full amount, but she died subsequently and could not appear in the fresh enquiry; that Ramesh Bahadur Singh did not appear in the fresh enquiry, but he had accepted in the earlier enquiry that he had received full amount. The applicant’s third contention is that he deposited Rs. 8,580 on 24.08.2005 as ordered by respondent no. 4 on 10.08.2005, but the amount has not been returned to him.

4. On the other hand, the respondents contend that out of 18 additional documents demanded by the applicant, 12 documents related to the case were allowed by the enquiry officer, one document at S. No. 2 was repeated on S. No. 29, and the remaining documents were found irrelevant to the case and could not be provided as they could not be preserved during the preliminary enquiry. The respondents state that Smt Bittan appeared in the enquiry and accepted that she had received the complete maturity amount which was contrary to her statement on 15.10.2004 which shows that she has been won over; that 5 other State Witnesses, including the other investors, did not appear in the enquiry as they had been won over.

5. We have heard both the parties. 6.1 To begin with, it would be apposite to recall the lacunae noticed in the departmental proceedings against the applicant by this Tribunal in OA No. 296 of 2008 as reflected in the following extracts of the judgment and order dated 12.11.2014: “6. …Inquiry officer in his report himself has categorically indicated that the document No. 17 and 19 were not examined. The bare perusal of the aforesaid two documents No. 17 and 19 shows that those are the summary dated 26.03.2004, 13.04.2004 and 19.02.2004. The relevance of those documents are also not mentioned in the inquiry officer’s report… While deciding the appeal, the Appellate Authority was ought to have considered the grounds taken in the appeal but the appellate order does not show that the Appellate Authority has considered the grounds taken in the appeal and passed the orders. …

12. It is settled principle that if any material is sought to be used in an enquiry, the copies of material must be supplied to the party against whom such an enquiry is held. The Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority did not consider this aspect of the matter and expressed their concurrence to the finding of the Inquiry Officer, without applying their independent and free mind…”

(emphasis supplied) It is evident from the above that the absence of relied upon documents no. 17 and 19 in the enquiry and non consideration of this aspect by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority was observed by this Tribunal while remitting the case back for fresh enquiry. 6.2 Perusal of the enquiry report dated 30.03.2016 reveals that documents listed at S. No. 17 (Amar Ujala newspaper report dated 16.04.2004) and S. No. 19 (summary dated 26.03.2004, 13.04.2004 and 19.02.2004 of main Post Office, Pratapgrah) of Annexure No. 3 to the charge sheet dated 21.10.2005 could not be made available in the fresh enquiry too. It is also observed that the enquiry officer has not examined the implications of non availability of these documents in his enquiry report. It noted further that the applicant requested for 18 additional documents out of which production of 12 additional documents in the enquiry was recommended, but there is no mention of which specific additional documents were supplied to the applicant in the enquiry. Thus the fresh enquiry has failed to cure the defects in the earlier enquiry, in our opinion. 6.3 A similar position obtains when we examine the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. In the impugned order dated 31.03.2017, the disciplinary authority has noted the applicant’s grievance that only two additional documents were provided to the applicant out of the additional documents requested by him, but there is no examination of the implications or significance of non-supply of other additional documents; similarly, there is no examination of the significance of absence of documents listed at S. No. 17 and 19 of the charge sheet. The appellate authority has taken note of the applicant’s grievance mentioning specific additional documents which were recommended by the enquiry officer but were not made available in the enquiry; however, the applicant’s grievance has been dismissed summarily with the cryptic observation that all relevant documents were supplied to the applicant; the

significance of the additional documents recommended by the enquiry officer, but not supplied to the applicant during the course of the enquiry, has not been examined at all by the appellate authority. 6.4 Coming to the witnesses, it is noted that out of the four investors related to the four charges against the applicant, Jagpati (SW-

3) and Shiv Kumari (SW-6) had passed away and could not depose in the fresh enquiry. Pramod Kumar Tiwari (SW-7) who had recorded Shiv Kumari’s statement did not appear in the enquiry. Investor Ramesh Bahadur Singh (SW-8) as well as agent Surendra Kumar Shukla (SW-9) also failed to appear in the enquiry. The only investor who appeared in the enquiry was Bittan (SW-11) who resiled from her statement dated 15.10.2004 (RUD-15). Thus three investors did not participate in the enquiry and the remaining investor deposed in favour of the applicant. The respondents’ version that their witnesses were won over by the applicant would be of no avail in the departmental proceedings. 6.5 In conclusion, the fresh enquiry and the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have failed to rectify the substantive lacunae relating to non supply of documents to the applicant noticed by this Tribunal in the judgment and order dated 12.11.2014 passed in OA No. 296 of 2008. It is further observed that the absence of three investors as well as the deposition of remaining investor in the enquiry create an incurable lacuna in the enquiry as the charges were based on non-receipt of interest amount by them.

7.1 In view of the foregoing, the order dated 31.03.2017 of the disciplinary authority and the order dated 21.11.2019 of the appellate authority are quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to release consequential benefits to the applicant, including refund of

Rs. 8,580 deposited by the applicant, without interest, within three months of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7.2 This OA is disposed of in the above terms. 7.3 Associated MAs also stand disposed of. 7.4 Parties shall bear their own costs.

(Pankaj Kumar)

(Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (A)

Member (J)

Vidya Vidya Ben Waghela Digitally signed by Vidya Ben Waghela Date: 2026.11.02 13:06:37 +05'30'