KISHORE KUMAR KONWAR vs DEPTT OF POSTS on 16 October 2026

ORDER

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

This O.A. has been filed by applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs: “8.1 Impugned Memorandum of chargesheet dated 19.01.2022 (Annexure A1) be set aside and quashed.

8.2 Impugned penalty order dated 23.05.202 (Annexure-A2) be set aside and quashed.

8.3 Impugned Appellate order dated 23.08.2023 communicated by letter dated 01.09.2023 (Annexure-A3) be set aside and quashed.

8.4 Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case.”

2. As per the applicant, he was initially appointed and joined as Postal Assistant on 23.07.2010 in Silchar Head Post Office under Cachar Division of Assam Postal Circle. He was transferred to Karimganj Head Post Office in February 2020 wherein he joined on 28.02.2020 as Postal Assistant. That the applicant while working as Postal Assistant at Karimganj HO, a Charge Memorandum dated 19.01.2022 was issued by Respondent No. 4 against him under Rule 16 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

"Sri Kishore Kr. Konwar while working as PA, NSC/KVP branch, Karimganj HO on 06.03.2020, opened l (one) new KVP account vi2,4153591440 in the name of Sri Arijit Deb, Kadamtala, Karimganj 788166 by using his Finacle ID 10030453 and credited the amount of investment into the Govt. Account on the same date. But subsequently he treated the said direct investment as investment through agent and linked the investment with a fake agent ID MIG0073001. Although no proper agent details were available in the prescribed portion of the AOF dated 06.03.2020, instead the Agent ID was written on the top of the AOF.

This activity by the said Sri Kishore Kr. Konwar resulted crediting of agent commission to the tune of Rs.l66l- into the fake SB account number 4336453981 (opened at Karimganj HO on 08.03.2019 by Sri Arijit Deb in the name of his mother DD Purkayastha). Thus the said Sri Kishore Kr. Konwar violated the provisions of Rule 139(1) & 139(4) of POSB (CBS) Manual, First Edition (Corrected upto July 2018) and failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Govt' servant, as required under the provisions of Rule-3 (l) (iD & Rule-3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, I 964."

3. Applicant submitted his written statement of Defence dated 09.02.2022 against the Charge sheet. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 23.05.2022 imposed a penalty of "reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage i.e., from Rs. 34,3001- to Rs. 33,3001- for a period of two years with effect from the salary of the month

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

of June 2022 payable in the month of July 2022 of the official without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension. As per the applicant, the charges framed against the official were based on documentary evidence and the charged official never prayed for supplying/inspection of the copies of relevant documents.

4. Applicant further reiterates that when he joined at Karimganj HPO on 28.02.2020, the agent ID MIG0073001 already existed in the finacle system in the office. He was not aware that it was a fake agent ID as there was no scope for him to determine the same and reasonably assumed and believed that the agent ID was genuine and it was opened as per procedure. After receipt of the Account Opening Form (AOF) of the KYP Account no.4753591440 he saw that the agent ID was written on top of the AOF duly signed by the depositor. He accordingly entered the said agent ID while opening the account and same was accepted in the finacle system without any error as investment through the agent.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

5. Applicant further contends that Smt. Sukla Dey, PA was serving as Supervisor of the applicant at that point of time on 06.03.2020 in KVP Branch. As per practice and procedure, after entering the agent ID while opening the account, the account is to be further scrutinized/verified by the Supervisor. Even in the instant case, after entering the agent ID by the applicant, the account was scrutinized/verified by Smt. Shukla Dey and she did not raise any objection or point out any error/mistake on the part of the applicant in entering the agent ID. She also mentioned nothing about any fake ID. As a result of entering of the said ID while opening the account by the applicant, an amount of Rs. 166/- was credited in the account linked with the said agent ID which belonged to the mother of one, Shri Arijit Deb, Smt. D D Purkayastha.

6. It is stated that there was no scope for the applicant to have indentified the said agent ID as a fake agent ID, more so when the same was accepted in the finacle system as usual without any error and the Supervisor has not made any observation during scrutiny and

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

verification of the account after entering the agent ID by the applicant. As per the applicant, there was no ill motive on his part. He had always maintained devotion to duty and he had not done anything which is unbecorning of a Govt. Servant. The allegation in the charge memorandum does not constitute misconduct. It is the settled position of law as laid down by the law in Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI v. J Ahmed [(1979) 2 SCC 236] that misconduct arises from ill motive; acts of negligence, error of judgement or innocent mistake do not constitute such misconduct. The Supreme Court in the said decision further held that gross or habitual negligence in the performance of one's duty may not involve mens rea but yet it may constitute misconduct for disciplinary proceedings. But, the instant case is not a case of gross or habitual negligence on the part of the applicant and as such does not constitute misconduct for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.

7. Applicant also submitted an appeal dated 16.06.2022 to the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No. 3. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 23.08.2023 upheld

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. However, inquiry report, relied upon by the Appellate Authority in his order dated 23.08.2023, had ever been furnished to the applicant.

8. As per the applicant, aforesaid serious charges against Smt. Mousumi Roy, Smt. Niyati Das and Smt. Nandita Shil, penalty orders dated 13.05.2022, 18.05.2022 and 17.05.2022 respectively were issued against them; and by order dated 13.05.2022, minor penalty of recovery of Rs. 20,000/- in 2 equal instalments from Smt. Mousumi Roy’s pay and allowances for the month of May, 2022 and June, 2022payable in the months of June, 2022 and July, 2022 respectively was issued upon Smt. Mousumi Roy. By order dated 18.05.2022, penalty of recovery of Rs. 2,265/- from the pay and allowance of Smt. Niyati Das for the month of May, 2022 was issued against her. Further, by order dated 17.05.2022, penalty of recovery of Rs. 15000/- in two instalments from Smt. Nandita Shil’s pay and allowance for the month of May, 2022 and June, 2022 was issued against Smt. Nandita Shil. However, penalty imposed upon the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

applicant i.e. reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 2 years is very severe considering the charge of loss, the role of the applicant in the incident and the act of fraud committed by Sri Arijit Deb against the Postal Department and also considering the penalty imposed upon other similarly situated employees with serious charges as stated above, by the same DA. The punishment imposed upon the applicant is severely disproportionate and he has been subjected to hostile discrimination with regard to imposition of penalty against Smt. Moushumi Roy, Smt. Niyati Das and Nandita Shil. Applicant, therefore, prays for interference of the penalty order dated 23.05.2022 and Appellate Order dated 23.09.2023. Applicant has also referred the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. UOI (2001) 9 SCC 180; Managing Director, ECIL V. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074; SBI and Others V. D.C. Aggarwal and Another [(1993) 1 SCC 13], Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [2013 (3) SCC 73] and Order dated 17.07.2026 passed by

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

CAT, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No. 144/2021 (Shri Avijit Sarma Vs. Union of India and Ors.).

9. Respondents have filed their written statement and states that the Disciplinary Authority had proposed to take action against the applicant under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and a statement of imputation was served upon. It is not a case of fake or real agent ID but a case of treating a direct investment as an investment through the agent. As per rule, the applicant was required to open the new KVP account by treating the same as a direct investment since there was no proper agent details made in the prescribed portion of the account opening form. But, the applicant accepted the said investment as if it was deposited through an Agent and also credited the amount of agent commission to an account linked with the agent id. The applicant was departmentally proceeded for imposing minor penalty as per the prescribed service rules and his case was finalized after giving him reasonable opportunities. There was no procedural lapse in the case and both the disciplinary authority and appellate authority applied their minds while

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

passing their respective decisions. The judgment relied upon by the applicant passed in UOI vs J. Ahmed (1979) 2 SCC 236 is not applicable in the present case. The issue therein is the Rule 16 of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 which provide retention of employee in service till termination of disciplinary proceedings and the applicability there of in a situation when the employee/charged official retained in service even after his retirement.

10. The judgment of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. Vs. Karunakar and Ors. AIR 1994 SC 1074 is with respect to the service of Inquiry Officer's report if the employee is proposed to be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank. On the contrary it supports the case of the respondents. Further, the facts in State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. D.C. Aggarwal and Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 13 is also distinguishable. In the said case the facts in brief is that the CVC not only disagreed with the Inquiry Officer and found charges I, II, III, IV, VIII, XI to XIII to have been proved, but it advised, 'imposition of a major penalty not less than removal

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

from service'. Therefore, the issue therein is also regarding imposition of major penalty.

11. Respondents further contend that in the instant case, prior to imposition of punishment, applicant had been given charge-sheet and in pursuance of charge-sheet, applicant had filed reply. Hence, there is no illegality in passing the impugned order because same has been passed in accordance with settled case law. Moreover, in O.K. Bhardwaj vs UOI & Ors (2001) 9 SCC 180 the punishment imposed was the stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and as per rule 16 (1-A) of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, if it is proposed to be withheld increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (24) of Rule 14, before making any order imposing on the Government

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

servant any such penalty. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable in the present case. The applicant has been penalized as per the provisions of the rules in force i.e. Rule-16 of CCA(CCA) Rules, 1965 for imposing a minor penalty only.

12. Sri M. Chanda, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A. Kundu, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents were heard at length and scrutinised the entire conspectus of the case.

13. A baseline analysis of the charge sheet indicates that the applicant’s core failure was treating a direct investment as an agent-linked investment by inserting the numerical code MIG0073001 into the software platform. The record reflects that this ID was already actively mapped and sitting inside the Finacle system database prior to the applicant joining the Karimganj HPO on 28.02.2020. When the applicant entered the code, the institutional database validated it seamlessly. Furthermore, the transaction was verified and approved by the designated Supervisor, Smt. Sukla Dey. If the ID was generated and approved across

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

multiple check-levels within the office, assigning absolute mens rea or exclusive operational fraud to a counter clerk who handled the document on his 6th day of posting is an overreach. The Apex Court in Union of India v. J. Ahmed (supra) explicitly laid down that: “Lack of efficiency or attainment of highest standards in discharge of duty attached to public office would ipso facto may not constitute misconduct... an act of negligence, error of judgment or innocent mistake do not constitute misconduct."

As the present facts show an isolated error of validation rather than systemic, habitual, or deliberate gross negligence, the charge lacks the necessary elements of structural misconduct.

14. Turning to the procedural aspects of the penalty, the applicant has placed reliance on the foundational judgments in O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India [(2001) 9 SCC 180] and Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar [AIR 1994 SC 1074]. The record shows that the Appellate Authority, while disposing of the statutory appeal on 23.08.2023, placed reliance on internal tracking/inquiry materials which were

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

never served upon the delinquent employee for a rebuttal. Even under the abbreviated framework of Rule 16, if the authority relies on dynamic adverse data or secondary reports to confirm a penalty, failing to supply those documents directly vitiates the core principles of natural justice.

15. On the question of the proportionality of the punishment, the record demonstrates clear institutional disparity. The same Disciplinary Authority, dealing with identical transactions and larger fiscal losses involving co- officers (Smt. Mousumi Roy, Smt. Niyati Das, and Smt. Nandita Shil), restricted their penalties to mere flat recoveries ranging from Rs. 2,265/- to Rs. 20,000/-. Conversely, the applicant whose action led to a marginal commission discrepancy of only Rs.166/- was handed a severe penalty of reduction in pay grade for two full years. This forms a textbook case of disproportionate punishment and hostile discrimination, violating the protective umbrella of Article 14 of the Constitution as verified in Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P. (supra).

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

16. In light of the aforesaid findings and judicial precedents, the O.A. succeeds on the grounds of procedural irregularity, disproportionate penalty, and lack of sustainable elements of misconduct. The impugned Penalty Order dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure A2), and the Appellate Order dated 23.08.2023 (Annexure A3) are hereby set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to take a lenient view and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

17. The O.A. is allowed. Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

(MALLIKA ARYA)

(RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

PB

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY