Shri Rishikesh Das vs DEPTT OF POSTS on 16 October 2026

ORDER

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

This O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: “8.1. Impugned Charge Memorandum dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure Al) be set aside and quashed.

8.2. Impugned Inquiry Report dated 26.12.2022 along with letter dated 06.01.2023(Annexure A2) be set aside and quashed.

8.3. Impugned penalty order dated 14.08.2023(Annexure A3) be set aside and quashed.

8.4. Impugned Appellate order dated 01.07.2024 (Annexure A4) be set aside and quashed.

8.5. The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to release monthly pension and other retiral benefits (except GPF and postal Insurance money already granted) due to the applicant w.e.f. the date of superannuation on 3 1.08.2023.

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

2. Sri M. Chanda, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that while the applicant working as Postal Assistant at Nongpoh SO, the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Meghalaya Division cum Disciplinary Authority issued impugned Charge

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Memorandum dated 19.02.2021 under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 with three charges relating to supervisory function over employees who involved in fraud and misappropriation of Govt. money. Applicant submitted written statement of defence dated 03.04.2021 and denied all the allegations leveled in the Charge Memorandum. By order dated 07.04.2021, Sri Poireiton Thokchum, ASP (Dn), Meghalaya Division, Shillong was appointed as Inquiring Authority and Smt. Susmita Majumder, ASP (HQ), Meghalaya Division, Shillong was appointed as the presenting Officer. As per the learned counsel, applicant was given no scope for nomination of a Defence Assistant and the hearing was held on 03.05.2021. Later, applicant nominated Sri Bijoy Bhushan Dutta, Retired Govt. Employee as his Defence Assistant, who appeared along with the applicant in the next date of hearing on 30.09.2021. However, under misunderstanding, applicant was made to accept the charge under Article-I. On realizing the said mistake, applicant later submitted representation dated 12.08.2021 before the Inquiring Authority, who did not consider the clarification of the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

applicant on the Article of Charge-I as stated in the representation dated 12.08.2021. More so, the Inquiry Officer has not recorded any finding of guilt in respect of the said alleged admitted article of charge as required under Rule 14

(11) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. As per the learned counsel, prosecution documents were not proved. These were simply marked as SE1, SE2, SE3, etc. The Inquiry Officeer on 30.09.2021 has mentioned that the said documents were taken in as exhibits as both the PO and CO with DA agreed. Further, these are as such dead evidences as not being proved by live evidences and are not admissible under law. Non proving of the documents are violative of settled position of law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. [(2009) 2 SCC 570].

3. Learned counsel further submitted that due to health issue, Defence Assistant of the applicant expressed his withdrawal as Defence Assistant before the Inquiry Officer through his letter dated 05.10.2021 where applicant also submitted a representation dated 05.10.2021 addressed to the Inquiry Officer with a prayer for deferring the hearing

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

ort.06.10.2021 and praying for some time to arrange another Defence Assistant. However, prayer of the applicant for deferment of hearing was rejected by the Inquiry Officer vide order dated 06.10.2021. The Inquiry Officer started the inquiry proceedings on 03.05.2021 without giving any scope to the applicant to engage his Defence Assistant. Thereafter, applicant submitted representation dated 26.10.2021 to the Disciplinary Authority for changing the Inquiry Officer. In the meantime, applicant had nominated Ramani Bhattacharyya as his new Defence Assistant, which was communicated to the Inquiry Officer through his letter dated 22.10.2021. But his nomination was rejected by the Inquiry Officer. As per the learned counsel, during inquiry, none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined, which were clearly evident from the order sheet dated 29.10.2021. The Inquiry Officer without any evidence in a arbitrary and mechanical manner held the Article of Charge II to stand good. Applicant submitted a representation dated 04.11.2021 as sought for in the order sheet dated 29.10.2021 highlighting the irregularities in on-examination of the witnesses, making argument in a

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

premature manner during the regular hearing, denial of scope to nominee Defence Assistant and about ignoring the explanation of the applicant against Article-I and taking it as his acceptance that too in absence of his Defence Assistant. But the said request was not considered and denied. In the meantime, applicant again had submitted representation dated 02.11.2021 to the Inquiry Officer to allow him to engage a new Defence Assistant but the same was not considered. Against the bias of the Inquiry Officer, applicant submitted a representation dated 08.11.2021 to the Director of Postal Services (HQ), N.E. Circle, Shillong for the change of the Inquiry Officer. On the same date, applicant also submitted a letter to the Sr. Suptd. of P.Os, Meghalaya Division, Shillong to suspend the inquiry till disposal of the appeal. Said request for suspension of the inquiry till appointment of new Inquiry Officer has been rejected by letter dated 09.11.2021.

4. Applicant further submitted that the applicant again submitted representation dated l8.l1.2021 to the Director of Postal Services (HQ), N.E. Circle, Shillong for

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

change of the Inquiry Officer and to allow engagement of a Defence Assistant. The Director of Postal Services (HQ), N.E. Circle, Shillong issued order dated 18.02.2022 observing that 'the Inquiry officer has not dealt the inquiry properly' and accordingly directed the Disciplinary Authority to change the Inquiry Officer. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority by order dated 24.02.2022 appointed Shri Ksh. Ibomcha Singh, Sr. Postmaster, Shillong, GPO, Shillong as the new Inquiring Authority. The new Inquiry Officer continued on the basis of the inquiry already conducted by the previous Inquiry Officer, Sri Poireiton Thokchum, ASP (Dn), Meghalaya Division, Shillong although the previous inquiry proceedings were held to be improper by the Director of Postal Services, Shillong. He however called the state witnesses exempting witness no. 2 during the further inquiry. The next hearing was held on 08.04.2022, on which date, the applicant was again directed for submission of representation in terms of para 9 of the previous Daily order sheet dated 29.10.2021. The applicant again submitted representation dated 10.05.2022 to the new Inquiry Officer stating that the contention of the PO recorded

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

in the order sheet dated 29.10.2021 are premature and not supported by any evidence and that the stage of argument by the parties was yet to come after conclusion of the case by both the parties. On 10.05.2022, the new Inquiry Officer allowed appointment of the Defence Assistant Sri Ramani Bhattacharyya for the applicant. The new Inquiry Officer further directed for examination of the state witnesses although the PO on 29.10.2021 had already withdrawn for their examination.

5. The next hearing was held on 06.06.2022. Smt. Chinta Mary Kharmawlong, the then IP, Jowai Sub Division[Now ASPOs, Est O/o the Chief PMG, N.E. Circle, Shillong] during her examination on 06.06.2022 deposed that since she joined as IP/Jowai Sub Division on 01.03.2019, she never saw Mr. Rana at all and that she never met or saw Sri T. B. Rana. However the prosecution witness no. 2, Smti Jyotsna Das, MTS Jowai MDG was not called. The applicant submitted letter dated 16.07.2022 and sought for the document at Sl. No. 98 of Annexure III of the charge memo dated 19.02.2021 i.e. page 7, page 3l and 32, A-3 in CBI Report (Case No.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

RC0202019A0005) which was provided to the applicant. In respect of the said prosecution document the applicant had also sought for requisition and summoning the CBI Inspector, Shri Niraj Kumar Singh. However the said request was rejected by the Inquiry Officer on 29.08.2022. The inquiry proceeding was concluded on 02.09.2022. As per the learned counsel, there was nothing against the applicant in the evidence and it is a case of no evidence. It is stated that neglecting such mandatory questioning is violative of the settled position of law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ministry of Finance v. S B Ramesh [(1998) 3 SCC

and also DOPT Office Memorandum dated 18.2.2015 which vitiates the entire disciplinary proceedings. The PO also submitted his written brief against which the applicant submitted his written brief on 03.11.2022. The Disciplinary Authority communicated the Inquiry Report dated 26.12.2022 to the applicant by letter dated 06.01.2023 for his written representation against the same within a period of 10 days. The new Inquiry Officer also mentioned that the Charged Officer admitted the charge under Article-I relying upon the order sheet of the erstwhile

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Inquiry Officer dated 03.05.2021. More so, the charges have not been proved against the applicant. Applicant submitted his reply dated 16.02.2023 against the inquiry report. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 14.08.2023 imposed penalty of ‘Removal from service’. As per the learned counsel, said penalty order was issued 17 days before retirement of the applicant, due on 31.08.2023. Hence, the penalty order is baseless and violative of the settled position of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Yunus Khan Vs. State of U.P. [(2020) 10 SCC 539] that charge against the delinquent shall be proved against him.

6. Sri Chanda has further contended that the Charge sheet was issued on 19.02.2021 and the penalty order was issued on 14.08.2023 and the disciplinary proceedings continued for about 2 years and 6 months. It is the settled position of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Anr. [(2015) 16 SCC 415] that disciplinary proceedings should be concluded within a period of I years and the delay

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

is violative of the settled position of law and has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.

7. By filing written statement, Sri A. Kundu, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents submitted that the applicant being the then SPM of Jowai Post supervisor, should adhered the department to the rules of and there is no rule of courtesy in official procedure. As per the department rules, unauthorized person like herein male relatives etc of a Mahila agent should not be permitted to transact business on behalf of a Mahila agent. The scheme does not envisage by proxy. The applicant did not object or report to the about (L) Shri Tez Bahdur Rana doing the official work in Jowai Post Office which is a violation of Rule 20 of Postal Manual Vol-VI Part-I. Under this rule, no person not belonging to the Department should be admitted into the interior of a post office or be permitted to take part in or interfere equally with the work of the office apply to the retired employee/relatives of postal officials. Such relatives should on no account be allowed either to render unauthorized assistance in the work of the office or to learn work unless they are permitted under the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

written orders of the competent authority. Thus, the applicant by allowing the outsider (L) Shri Tez Bahadur Rana to operate the agency of his wife and by admitting office him inside the post had violated the rules of the Department and facilitated the outsider (L)Shri Tez Bahadur Rana to commit the fraud.

8. Sri Kundu further submitted that under Article III, the charge against the applicant itself is that he never objected the SBPAS when they directed the account holders customers to (L) Shri Tez Bahadur Rana. The applicant had supervisory power over the SBPAs and should have not allowed the irregularities as mentioned above. Further, he had never brought it to the notice of the Higher Authority. As regards Article-II, Shri Rishikesh Das could not give any reply as to how (L) Shri Tez Bahadur Rana got those blank passbooks and seal of the SPM, Jowai PO as all these were supposed to be kept in the custody of the SPM. The passbooks were issued fraudulently when Shri Rishikesh Das was the SPM of Jowai Post Office. The SPM is the custodian of blank passbooks in the office. If any Passbook is misused or issued fraudulently, the SPM is liable for disciplinary action. Shri Rishikesh Das had

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

already mentioned in his written statements and hearings conducted by the Inquiry Officer that (L) Shri Tez Bahadur Rana used to sit beside the table of SPM from the time before his joining and he could not prevent the outsider from coming to the office out of respect and courtesy which is not a concern. His failure to discharge his duty is the main factor which led to the fraud.

9. Sri Kundu has further submitted that as per O.M issued vide Ministry of Finance (DEA) O.M. No. F1(53)/NS/57 dated 31.12.1959 and D.G.'s Special P.O. Circular No. 66 dated 4.3.1960, the authorized agents will be appointed by the officers authorized by the State Government (Collector/ Deputy Commissioner of the District, Tehsildar and Block Development Officer or other gazette officers). The SSPOs, Meghalaya Division has no role in the appointment of Smti Remika Chettri as agent. Thus, the question of being a witness by the SSPOS, Meghalaya Division does not arise and by no logical sense calls for SSPOs as witness. As regards the eligibility of (L) Smt. Remika Chettri as agent, when the fraud came to light, after investigation, SSPOs, Meghalaya Division

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

had reported to D.C., West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai, (the appointing authority in this case) vide this office letter no F4- 13/18-19/Jowai MDG dated 12.06.2019 and her agency was cancelled by the DC, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai vide order dated 15.10.2019. SSPOS, Meghalaya Division issued a charge Memorandum to Shri Rishikesh Das as he was not an LSG official so SSPOs has the power to issue the charge sheet against the official. However, the Penalty Order was issued from the office of DPS (HQ) as Shri Rishikesh Das was appointed vide Order No DPS Itr No B-2/42-2 dated 06.11.1992 as per the service book of Shri Rishikesh Das. Thus, in view of the aforementioned points, the SSPOS, Meghalaya Division is not an interested party in the instant case. Therefore, allegations against the SSPOs is mischievous and the disciplinary proceedings was carried out in accordance with the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The charges against the applicant were proved as per settled proposition of law and same is in conformity of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in Md. Yunus Khan Vs. State of UP (2010) 10 SCC 539. Further, in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Corpn. Ltd. Haldia & Ors. reported at (2005) 7 SCC 764, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. They also referred the cases of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur, reported in (1972) 4 SCC 618, Union of India and Ors. Vs. R. Shankarappa, decided on 25.07.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 9852 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7149 of 2023) and the General Manager, Canara Bank Vs. Ganganarasimhaiah decided on 09.09.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 11461 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20343 of 2022.

10. We have heard the rival submissions at length and perused the judgments and documents relied upon by both parties.

11. It is noted that while working as a Postal Assistant at Nongpoh SO, a Memorandum of Charge was issued against the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, proposing to hold an inquiry against him on three specific Articles of charge. Article I alleges that while the applicant

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

was working as SPM of Jowai Post Office w.e.f. 13.04.2017 to 16.10.2019, he was involved in a massive fraud case via the issuance of 59 numbers of fake 1 year TD passbooks in connivance with Shri Tez Bahadur Rana (retired SPM) and Shri Lembadngi Jyrwa (the then P.A.), misappropriating Government money to the tune of ₹1,70,02,470/-. Article II charges the applicant with failing to maintain the stock of blank passbooks as per Rule 6(2)(b) of the POSB Manual Vol-I, which structurally facilitated the issuance of the 59 nos. of fake accounts. Article III details that the applicant permitted an outsider, the late Shri Tez Bahadur Rana, to illegally operate the agency of his wife (Smt. Remika Chettri, MPKBY/SAS Agent), allowing him inside the Post Office, letting him occupy the table next to the SPM's table, and entrusting him with official entries in official passbooks.

12. In evaluating the legal validity of these proceedings, the law has been clearly settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and Others vs. P. Gunasekaran [(2015) 2 SCC 610]. The Supreme Court laid down strict boundaries for judicial review, explicitly stating that a Court or Tribunal shall

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

not act as a second court of first appeal or venture into the re-appreciation of evidence. The jurisdiction is restricted solely to verifying whether the inquiry was held by a competent authority, followed the prescribed procedure, respected the principles of natural justice, and arrived at a conclusion that is backed by legal evidence rather than being wholly arbitrary or capricious. Under the P. Gunasekaran (supra) framework, this Tribunal is strictly barred from re-appreciating evidence, going into the adequacy or reliability of evidence, correcting errors of fact (however grave), or interfering with the quantum of punishment unless it shocks the conscience of the court.

13. We have gone through the records and submissions of both parties. In this case, the charges have been fully proved. The applicant, being the SPM of Jowai Post Office and a high-level supervisor, had a strict duty to adhere to the statutory rules of the department. There is absolutely no role for courtesy or informal flexibility in official government procedures. We thus, agree with the contention of the respondents that under departmental rules, unauthorized

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

persons such as the male relatives of a Mahila agent must never be permitted to transact business on behalf of a Mahila agent. The applicant, by actively allowing the outsider (L) Shri Tez Bahadur Rana to operate the agency of his wife and by admitting him into secure areas of the Post Office, directly violated the rules of the Department and actively facilitated the late Shri Tez Bahadur Rana to commit the multi-crore fraud. Consequently, the procedural track followed by the authorities matches the required administrative standards, and the findings of fact are well-grounded in institutional regulations and records.

14. In view of the above, we do not see any justified reason that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority warrants interference.

15. Accordingly, the O.A. stands dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of. No costs.

(MALLIKA ARYA)

(RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

PB

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY