M SRINIVAS vs POST TELANGANA CIRCLE on 4 November 2026

O R D E R

PER: HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief: “….to call for the records pertaining to:

1. Memo. No. F7-1/17-18/Gundlapochampalle dt. 9-1-2019 (Annexure-I);

2. Memo. No. F7-1/17-18/GP dt. 30-10-2019 (Annexure-VI);

3. Memo No. HQR/Vig/Appeal/20/MS/SD/2019 dt. 27-2-2020 (Annexure- VIII); and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Rules and instructions prescribed and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside and quash the said illegal Orders including the punishment of 'Removal from Service' with consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service with all service benefits and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are summarised below:

i. The applicant was appointed as GDS/BPM, Gundla Pochampalli BO a/w Kompalli S.O., Secunderabad Division, on 03.11.2011. While working as such, he was put off duty and a charge sheet under Rule 10 of the GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011, was issued on 09.01.2019, containing the following three articles of charge against him for the incidents pertaining to the period from 03.11.2011 to 14.06.2017:- Article I That Sri. M. Srinivas, GDS BPM(Off-duty), Gundlapochampalle BO a/w Kompally SO while working as GDS BPM, Gundlapochampalle BO a/w Komaplli SO during the period from 03.11.2011 to 14.06.2017, has withdrawn pension amount of Rs. 7000/- in r/o of Account no. 1203621903 held by Smt Utla Rani from November 2016 to May, 2017 using VRO authentication but has not paid the pension amount to original pensioner as required under the procedure for payment of Aasara Pension.

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

Article II That the said Sri. M. Srinivas, GDS BPM(Off-duty), Gundlapochampalle a/w Kompally SO, while working as GDS BPM, Gundlapochampalle BO a/w Kompally SO during the period from 03.11.2011 to 14.06.2017, has withdrawn pension amount of Rs. 16000/- in r/o of Account no. 1203621810 held by Smt S. Kamalamma from January 2016 to April, 2017 using VRO authentication but has not paid the pension amount to original pensioner as required under the procedure for payment of Aasara Pension. Article III That the said Sri. M. Srinivas, GDS BPM (off duty) while working as GDS BPM, Gundlapochampalle BO a/w Kompally SO during the period from 03.11.2011 to 14.06.2017 has withdrawn the pension amount pertaining to deceased pensioner Sri S. Veera Reddy who expired on 12.09.2016 from his pension A/c no. 1203621722 after his death, by using VRO authentication to the tune of Rs.9,000/- from September-2016 to February-2017 and handed over the amount to the person brought by VRO. When inquired by ASP (North) he stated that he verified the Aadhar card of the person, but as the photo is not clear and finger prints failed he paid the amount on VRO authentication. But has not paid the pension amount to original pensioner as required under the procedure for payment of Aasara Pension. It is therefore, alleged that the said Sri. M. Srinivas, GDS BPM (off-duty), while working as GDS BPM, Gundlapochampalle a/w Komally SO, has contravened the procedure for payment of Aasara Pension in case of authentication failure with BFD as per letter No.113/SERP.SSP/DoP/2015 dtd 31-08-2015 and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required under Rule 21 of DOP (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2011.

ii. The Inquiry Officer (IO, in short) and the Presenting Officer (PO, in short) were appointed to inquire into the charges, vide order, dt.22.02.2019. The PO sent his brief, dt.13.08.2019, to which, the applicant submitted his representation, dt.27.08.2019, disproving the charges. It is alleged that the IO had conducted the inquiry in gross violation of the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, denying reasonable opportunity to the applicant and submitted his report on 12.09.2019. The IO did not conduct the inquiry as

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

per the procedure laid down under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Hence, it is not valid and is liable to be set aside.

iii. The applicant submitted his written statement of defence, dt.04.10.2019, to the IO, disproving the charges levelled against him. The 4th Respondent, without considering the merits of the case and without properly evaluating the evidence on record and the submissions made by the applicant in his written statement of defence, awarded the penalty of ‘Removal from Service’, vide memo, dt.30.10.2019.

iv. The appeal, dt.16.11.2019, preferred by the applicant, was rejected mechanically by the 2nd Respondent/Appellate Authority on 27.02.2020. v. It is submitted that the charge sheet was issued to the applicant in respect of the alleged incident which took place about 14 months back. According to the DOPT letter No.114/176/78.Disc.II, dt.13.02.1981, the charge sheet has to be issued within 2 months from the date of receipt of investigation report. The penalty was awarded without establishing the charges levelled against the applicant. The negligence, if any, on the part of the applicant is not explained. In the absence of such explanation, it is not correct to impose the heavy penalty of ‘Removal from Service’ on the applicant. Hence, the action of the respondents in issuing the charge sheet with false and fictitious allegations after 14 months, without explaining the reasons for delay, is illegal and arbitrary.

vi. The applicant relied on the following judgments in support of his claim-

a. The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bani Singh And Another on 5 April, 1990. Equivalent citations: AIR 1990 SC 1308, 1990 Crill 1315, 1990 (60) FLR 824

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

b. P.V. Mahadevan vs M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 8 August, 2005. Bench: R Pal, D A Lakshmanan, CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4901 of 2005. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/08/2005

c. A.Ganesan vs The Secretary To Government on 23.2. 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 23/02/2011 W.P.(MD) No.11174 of 2009 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1&2 of 2009 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2010

vii. It is argued that the charge sheet is vague and has been framed in gross violation of Rule 14 (3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Issuing such vague charge sheet and asking the government servant to face it, is illegal, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri. Ananth R. Kulkarni V YP Education Society in Civil Appeal No. 3935 of 2013. Accordingly, the disciplinary proceedings, including the charge memo, have to be set aside.

viii. It is pleaded that the punishment of ‘Removal from Service’ awarded by the 3rd Respondent is too heavy and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and shocks the conscience. In such cases, this Hon'ble Tribunal can intervene in the matter, as held by various courts as shown hereunder: “1. Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Collector Singh Vs LML Ltd., Kanpur in Civil appeal No.10125/2014 (Arising out of SLP) (Civil) 37619/2012:

Supreme Court intervened and modified the penalty.

2. Supreme Court of India Judgment in the case of Director General R.P.F. And Ors. vs Ch. Sai Babu on 29 January, 2003 Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 SC 1437, 2003 (51) BLJR 1653

Held: All relevant facts have to be considered before awarding penalty.

3. Supreme Court of India Judgment in the case of S.R. Tewari Vs. Union of India & ANR. [Civil Appeal Nos. 4715-4716 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 22263-22264 of 2012] Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 180-181 of 2013

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

Held: that the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias.”

ix. Hence, the OA.

3. On notice, Respondents have filed their reply statement contending that– i. An article was published on 08.06.2017 in the Namaste Telangana daily Telugu newspaper about non-payment of Asara pension at Gundla Pochampalli BO a/w Kompalli SO. On receipt of the news, the ASP(North) Sub Division enquired into the details of the case and noticed the irregularities committed by the applicant, while working as GDS BPM, Gundlapochampalle BO a/w Komaplli SO, during the period from 03.11.2011 to 14.06.2017, as he had withdrawn pension amount of Rs.7000/-, Rs.16000/- and Rs.9000/- in r/o of A/c.Nos. 1203621903 (held by Smt.Utla Rani), 1203621810 (held by Smt.S. Kamalamma) and 1203621722 (held by Sri S.Veera Reddy, who had expired on 12.09.2016), respectively, using VRO authentication, but had not paid the pension amounts to the original pensioners, as required under the procedure for payment of Aasara Pension. ii. The ASP, Secunderabad North Sub Division, was ordered to carry out Past Work Verification (PWV) of Gundlapochampalli BO a/w Kompalli SO, on 10.07.2017, and the same was completed on 25.04.2018. The ASP, Secunderabad North Sub Division, was also directed to verify the Aasara pension payments with passbooks of the pensioners, as per the directions of the RO, vide letter, dt.22.06.2018,

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

and also to ensure that pension was not paid in cases of the dead pensioners using the VRO authentication. iii. When inquired by the ASP (North), the GDS BPM stated that he had verified the Aadhar card of the person, but as the photo was not clear and finger prints had failed, he had paid the amount on the basis of VRO authentication. But he did not pay the pension amount to the original pensioners, as required under the procedure for payment of Aasara Pension. After completion of verification of accounts/passbooks, a charge sheet was issued to the Applicant. iv. The applicant was kept under off-duty w.e.f 13.06.2017. After completion of PWV of the BO, the applicant was issued with a charge sheet, under Rule-10, vide Memo, dt.09.01.2019, IO/PO were appointed on 22.2.2019. Preliminary inquiry was held on 8.4.2019, followed by subsequent sittings on 22.4.2019, 6.5.2019, 18.6.2019, 26.6.2019, 5.7.2019, 23.7.2019 and the D.E. concluded on 1.8.2019. Final proceedings were issued on 30.10.2019 and, based on the gravity of the offence and as per the IO's findings, and all other relevant records connected with the case, the GDS BPM was removed from service with immediate effect, vide memo, dt.30.10.2019. v. It is stated that xeroxed copies of the listed documents were supplied to the Applicant, vide SSPOs letter, dt.01.02.2019, for submission of his defence reply. The listed documents in original were produced by the PO and were perused by the Applicant during the enquiry. A set of documents was also supplied to the Applicant after perusal. Additional documents, relevant to the charges, were supplied to the

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

Applicant during the inquiry and the same were perused by the Applicant. The Applicant did not raise any objection regarding bias during the inquiry. vi. Out of the 12 additional documents sought, 8 documents were allowed by the IO, 2 were supplied and for the remaining documents, suitable replies were given. vii. The applicant submitted representations on the PO’s brief, dt. 13.08.19, and on the IO’s Report, dt.12.09.2019. He was given ample opportunity to prove his innocence. All available documents were supplied, as per his request. On the basis of documentary and oral evidence in the case, the charges levelled against the Applicant are proved beyond doubt. After examining the facts of the case, the Applicant was awarded the penalty of "Removal from service", vide memo, dt. 30.10.2019.

viii. The aspect of severity of penalty, as submitted by the charged official, has been carefully examined. The applicant was alleged to have not paid Aasara pensions to the right persons and, thereby, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. These allegations are proved in the oral inquiry. ix. During the inquiry, it was revealed that one S.Veera Reddy, Aasara Pensioner, had expired on 12.09.2016, but the Applicant withdrew his pension amount, even after his death, to the tune of Rs.9000/-, from October, 2016, to April, 2017, on the basis of VRO authentication. x. It is contended that the charge sheet was issued, based on the facts revealed during the preliminary inquiry by the ASP, Secunderabad

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

North Sub Division, taking into account the deposition of the beneficiaries before the ASP(N). The transactions were also verified with reference to the ledger card of the pensioners available in the portal and it was found that the pension amounts shown as paid through VRO authentication were not actually paid to the beneficiaries. The Applicant, in his statement, dt.09.06.2017, has admitted that he had handed over the pension amount to the VRO instead of paying the same to the original pensioner. The Applicant was given ample opportunity to prove his innocence by holding regular inquiry sittings and all the available documents were supplied, as per his request, for perusal by him. On the basis of the documentary and oral evidence in the case, the charges levelled against the Applicant are proved beyond doubt. Hence, he was awarded the penalty of "Removal from service". xi. Respondents have prayed to dismiss the OA with costs.

4. Heard Mr. B. Gurudas, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mrs.K.Rajitha, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Respondents. We have also gone through the original documents, produced by the learned counsel for the Respondents and all the original documents have been returned.

5. It is noted that the newspaper carried the allegation of irregularity in the payment of Aasara Pension in its edition, dt.08.06.2017. The internal enquiry was completed on 25.04.2018. Thereafter, further enquiry was ordered on 22.06.2018. The charge memo was issued on 09.01.2019. It is worth noting that the departmental enquiry was completed on 01.08.2019 and, after securing the

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

written defence of the applicant/C.O., the order of penalty was issued on 30.10.2019. The allegation of inordinate delay in issue of charge sheet does not hold water.

6. As regards vagueness in the charges, this allegation, too, is found to be baseless. The charges are very specific and, after following the due procedure, have been held as proved. It cannot be said that the applicant has not been afforded fair opportunity to defend himself in the course of the enquiry. There was no allegation of bias during the DE. This allegation appears to be absolutely an afterthought.

7. On receipt of the Inquiry Report, a detailed response was submitted by the applicant/C.O. on 04.10.2019. The Disciplinary Authority passed orders on 30.10.2019, which read as under: “Thus, it is evident that the charged GDS BPM has paid the amount to the person shown by the VRO on VRO authentication. When biometric has failed, he has failed to follow the procedure for payment of Aasara pension in case of authentication failure with BFD. Thus, the charged GDS BPM cannot deny that the charges framed against him are not clear, not accurate and vague and that he is denied of reasonable opportunity to defend his case. He further stated that the relevant documents were denied supply. The above allegations are not true. The charged GDS BPM was given ample opportunity to prove his innocence by holding inquiry sittings and all available documents were supplied as per his request for perusal by him. As per the procedure, in case of finger print failure, the GDS BPM can withdraw the amount using VRO authentication in the presence of pensioner and has to made payment to the concerned pensioner only. Thus on the basis of documentary and oral evidence in the case, the charges levelled against Shri M. Srinvas, GDS BPM(POD), Gundlapochampally BO a/w Kompally SO are proved beyond any doubt. Taking all the above into consideration, I Subrahmanyam, Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad-500 080 hereby order that Shri M. Srinivas, GDS BPM(POD),

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

Gundlapochampally BO a/w Kompalli SO be removed from service with immediate effect.”

8. The appeal, dt.16.11.2019, preferred by the applicant to the Appellate Authority, which came to be disposed of on 27.02.2020, reads as under: “Observation: The disciplinary authority after taking into consideration all the representations of the charged sevak, IO' report and oral and documentary evidence adduced in the inquiry finalized the case by imposing the penalty of 'Removal from engagement'. The aspect of severity of penalty as submitted by the appellant has been carefully examined. The appellant was alleged to have not paid pensions to the right persons and alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity and also failed to maintain devotion to duty. These allegations are proved by oral inquiry. As the acts of appellant involve moral turpitude, ends of justice will not be met if any penalty other than "Removal from engagement" is imposed.

ORDER

Therefore I, N R Visalatchy, Director of Postal Services, O/o Postmaster General, Headquarters Region, Hyderabad - 500001 in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 18 of Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011, after careful examination reject the appeal.”

9. In the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the Applicant, challenging the departmental action taken by the respondent authorities for removal of the applicant from service, he submits that the pension was released to wrong persons based on incorrect authentication made by the VRO, who was also removed from service. He would submit that the VRO has also refunded the amount. He further submits that the applicant has never committed any fraud. It was purely based on the report of the VRO, who has been removed from service. He submits that the penalty imposed is too harsh and not appropriate to the allegations levelled.

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

10. Opposing grant of relief, the learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings is very limited and that all the formalities have been duly followed while taking action against the applicant.

11. She also submits that the opportunity of cross examination has also been afforded to the C.O. and all necessary documents as well as the list of witnesses were provided to him. She also highlights the case of the defence during general examination, which reads as under: “Case of the Defence :- During the general examination by IO, the CO had admitted that while giving the pension he has to verify that Adhar Card, Bio- metric Identification and entry in the Pass Book. But in the case of Smt Utla Rani the CO has failed to entry in the Pass Book. He entered on the reverse of the Adhar Card which is in contravention of existing Rules. He did not ask for fresh book from DO or from SPM. IN remaining two cases he failed to identify the Adhar card. On VRO authentication he has paid the pension and he is not sure to whom he has paid due to rush.”

12. It is noted that Ms.J.Sujatha, who was the concerned VRO was not called as a witness by the delinquent officer at any point of time nor was any request made in this regard to substantiate his claim.

13. In a significant judgment, reported in 2007 AIR SCQ 4136 JT 2007(8) SC 588 (Ramesh Chandra Sharma vs. Punjab National Bank and another), at Para 20, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that- “..........once the employer has lost confidence in the employee and the bonafide loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge for the confidence requires absolute integrity. A necessary implication which must be engrafted on the contract of service is that the servant must undertake to serve his master with good faith and fidelity. In a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed. Granting such an employee the relief of reinstatement would be ‘an act of misplaced sympathy which can find no foundation in law or in equity‘ (Vide AIR 1972 Corporation, Bombay Vs. V.A.Ravellow AIR 1972 SC 1343, The Binny Ltd Vs. Their Workman AIR 1973 SC 1403, Kamal Kishore Lakshman vs. Management of M/s

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

Pan American World Airways Inc. Or others, AIR 1987 SC 229, Francis Kalein and Co Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen AIR 1971 SC 2414, Regional Manager Rajasthan SRTC vs. Sohanlal (2004) 8 SCC 218 and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs. M.Chandra Shekar Reddy and others 2005 AIR SCW 1232.” (emphasis added)

14. In view of the above, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned orders, as pension has been denied to the rightful beneficiaries and, in one case, drawn in the name of a deceased beneficiary in a highly irregular manner by the applicant. The OA is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.

(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi)

(Manish Garg) Administrative Member

Judicial Member

04.11.2026

/ps/

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA