Sanjit Kumar Behera vs POSTS on 11 November 2026

O R D E R

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (ADMN.):

The facts of the matter, in gist, are that the applicant, Sri Sanjit Kumar Behera, while working as Inspector of Posts of Nabarangpur Postal Sub Division was charge sheeted under Rule 16 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965, vide Memorandum No. No. F/Misc- 01/2024 dated at 30.01.2024 alleging failure to maintain absolute devotion to duty with the highest degree of professionalism and dedication as required under Rule-3 (1)(ii) & 3(1)(xxi) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 inasmuch as, while he was working as IP, Rairangpur Sub Division under Mayurbhanj Division from 15.06.2017 to 14.01.2020 visited Gorumahisiani S.O in account with Rairangpur HO under Mayurbhanj Division (now under Rairangpur Division) on 07.09.2018 and carried out annual inspection of the said Sub Post Office. He submitted IR vide letter No. IR/Gorumahisiani SO/2018 dated 30.10.2018, which was received at Divisional Office, Mayurbhanj on 05.11.2018, exceeding the time limit for issue of IR as prescribed by the Directorate letter No. 17-3/92-Inspn. dated 2nd July, 1992. Further, it was alleged that during inspection, he failed to verify the required number of SSA and RD passbooks; a single MIS and RAVI KUMAR

TD passbook and also not issued any SB-46 notices thereof which was in violation of Directorate letter No. 16- 01/2013-Inspn. Dated 21.01.2016. In substance, it was alleged that due to such contributory negligence and inaction of Applicant, the fraudulent activities of Sri Pitabas Mahali and others involved in Gorumahisiani S.O fraud case could not be pointed out earlier for which adequate measures for detection of the fraud could not also be taken earlier for which said Sri Maha!i and others got ample scope to misappropriate amount to the tune of Rs 9,20,79,112.00 (Rupees Nine Crores Twenty Lakhs Seventy-Nine Thousand and One Hundred Twelve only) from the Govt. account. On 12.02.2024 he represented for supply of documents which were supplied to him on 08.04.2024.

2. Thereafter, disciplinary authority vide Memo No. F/Misc- 01/2024 dated 11.07.2024 found him guilty of the charges and considering his long past service, imposed the punishment of recovery of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Sixty Thousand) from his pay @ Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) only per month starting from the pay of July, 2024 towards recoupment of a part of outstanding loss sustained to the Govt. Exchequer in RAVI KUMAR

the fraud committed by Shri Pitabasa Mahali by observing that the Applicant during the course of Annual Inspection of Gorumahisani SO (single handed SO) for the year 2017, verified 5 SSA passbooks, 5 RD passbooks and 5 MIS passbooks as against the prescribed 10 SSA passbooks, 10 RD passbooks and 10 MIS passbooks respectively in contravention of the Directorate letter No. 16- 01/2013-Inspn. Dated 21.01.2016. He did not verify any TD passbook as against the prescribed 10 passbooks and also did not issue any SB-46 notices in lieu of verification of less number of passbooks under aforementioned schemes. He submitted the IR of Gorumahisani SO for the year 2017 on 24.03.2018 which was received at Divisional Office, Mayurbhanj Division on 26.03.2018 i.e. way after its stipulated time limit. Further, during the course of annual inspection of Gorumahisani SO (single handed SO) for the year 2018, verified 5 SSA passbooks and 5 RD passbooks as against the prescribed 10 SSA passbooks and 10 RD passbooks respectively in contravention of the Directorate letter No. 16- 01/2013-Inspn. dated 21.01.2016 and that he did not verify any MIS and T'D passbook as against the prescribed 10 passbooks each and also did not issue any SB-46 notices in lieu of verification RAVI KUMAR

of less number of passbooks under aforementioned schemes. He submitted IR of Gorumahisani SO for the year 2018 on 30.10.2018 which was received at Divisional Office, Mayurbhanj Division on 05.11.2018 i.e., way after its stipulated time limit. Such negligence act of the applicant, gave way path and led committing further irregularities and fraud by Shri Pitabasa Mahali, the then SPM, Gorumahisani SO and, had the applicant been vigilant in performance of his duty, fraud of such huge amount to the tune of Rs.9,20,79,112.00 (Rupees Nine Crore Twenty Lakh Seventy-Nine Thousand and One Hundred Twelve) could have been avoided/detected early.

3. Applicant preferred appeal on 23.08.2024 to Res.No.3 stating inter alia that during his entire career of his service he performed his duty with due sincerity, loyalty and dedication to duty. Sri Pitabas Mahali while working as Sub Postmaster, Gorumahisiani SO cunningly and mischievously utilized his mind to trace systemic loopholes in the technology advancement i.e., SAP, finacle, etc thereby embezzled a huge amount which was beyond the comprehension and power of a normal human being to have a preventive vigilance to check such innovative cases. The RAVI KUMAR

charge sheet was vague. The Disciplinary Authority without conducting an inquiry imposed punishment of recovery of Rs 3,60,000/- as the portion of pecuniary loss without stating the manner on which such proportion recovery amount reach by DA to make good the loss notwithstanding the law of the land that no such recovery can be ordered under minor penalty proceeding without causing due enquiry. The DA imposed the punishment without analyzing or specifying the degree of culpability of negligence while ordering recovery from him. The order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Disciplinary Authority is nothing but a product of non application of mind and the punishment of recovery of Rs 3,60,000/- from his salary treating him as a subsidiary offender, is bad in law. Further, it was stated that Disciplinary Authority held guilty of lapses without explaining which of his lapses caused which amount of the loss to the department and his link to such lapse. According, to the applicant since no decision was taken on his appeal and on the other hand he was highly prejudiced for such recovery, he approached this Bench in the OA. The prayer of the Applicant in this OA is to quash the charge sheet dated 30.01.2024(A/1), the order of RAVI KUMAR

Disciplinary Authority dated 11.07.2024(A/3), the order of Appellate authority dated 10.10.2024(A/5) and to direct the Respondents to refund the recovered amount to him.

4. Respondents filed their counter stating therein that the Appeal dated 23.08.2024 of applicant was duly considered and rejected vide letter No. ST/06-27/2024 dated 10.10.2024 which was delivered to the Applicant on 22.10.2024. In so far as merit of the matter is concerned, it has been averred that the Applicant carried out the annual inspection of Gorumohisani Sub Post Office on 06.11.2017 and 07.09.2018 in a very routine and casual manner breaching the Departmental guidelines and did not submit the required Inspection Report to the reviewing authority in time as per authoritative guidelines of the Department. Non- issuance of Inspection Reports timely is a breach of devotion to duty being in violation of Dte's letter No. F. No. 17-01/2018- Inspn. dated 05.10.2018. Due to such negligence/inaction on the part of Applicant, the very provision of inspection became purposeless and obscure and, such laxity on the part of Applicant, the performance of the Sub Postmaster Gorumohisani S.O remained out of sight and he continued commission of fraud till its RAVI KUMAR

detection; for which minor penalty charge sheet was issued to the Applicant, on receipt of which, he requested to provide him relevant documents vide his application dated 12.02.2024 which was supplied to him on 08.04.2024. The documents are adequate to refresh his memory regarding the error that resulted in a fraud of significant amount. But he availed more than six months time, he did not file any defence to the Memorandum of charge sheet. The charges framed against him in a clear and unambiguous manner. departmental as well as Police action has been initiated against the principal offender namely Shri Pitabas Mahali. The Department has sustained a massive loss amounting to more than Rupees Nine Crore in the instant fraud case. The Applicant has been punished for laxity on his part, which facilitated the fraud. The failure on keeping proper checks on the part of the Applicant provided ample scope to said Shri Mahali to misappropriate huge amount of Govt. money. The Applicant has been punished for contributory negligence on his part as inspecting officer, the fraud committed by Shri Mahali, could not be detected at the time of inspection and continued for long time till 11.03.2021. The Disciplinary Authority issued the order of penalty of recovery RAVI KUMAR

from the applicant with discussions of evidences and facts of the case. the act of the Respondents is in-conformity of Department Rules and regulations. The proceeding against the Applicant is under Rule-16 of CCS (CCA) under which holding of inquiry is not compulsory and depends upon opinion of disciplinary authority that such inquiry is necessary or not. The Disciplinary Authority, gone through the entire case and connected records and with due application of mind in a dispassionate manner and imposed the punishment in a well reasoned order to the extent of the loss attributable to the applicant for the loss caused by Shri Mahali. Accordingly, it is the stand of the respondents that this OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard. According to learned counsel for the Respondents, the applicant did not submit any defence to the charge sheet issued to him and, thus, the allegations leveled against him in the said charge sheet was deemed to have been accepted by the Applicant. In the said circumstances, imposition of punishment by the DA which was upheld by the AA cannot be faulted with and, the OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant brought to the notice RAVI KUMAR

O.A.No. 260/00623 of 2024 of this Bench the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of O.K.Bhardwaj vs UOI and Others, 2002 SCC (L&S) 188, to state that in the instant case the charge sheet was vague and unspecific and, that when the allegations made in the charge sheet are in dispute and factual in nature, the respondents ought not to have proceeded and punished the applicant without making regular enquiry in the manner followed in the case where proceedings under Rule 14 CCS (CC&A) Rules, is initiated against an employee. In order to fortify his submission that even if it is a Rule 16 proceeding, the respondents would not have imposed the punishment, like the case in hand, without conducting proper enquiry, drew attention of this Bench of the cases decided in OA No. 274/2023 dated 16.05.2025 [Rajnish Kumar vs UOI & Ors]; OA No. 602/2021 dated 12.05.2026 [Sanatan Mallick vs UOI & Ors] and in OA No. 304 of 2015 dated 14.11.2017 [Medini Prasad Dash vs UOI & Ors] upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in WP ( C) No. 13124 of 2018 dated 09.05.2022 and has submitted that the present case being one and the same, both on facts and issue, the applicant is entitled to the relief claimed in this OA.

6. Upon considering the rival submissions of the parties, I have RAVI KUMAR

O.A.No. 260/00623 of 2024 gone through the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents placed in support thereof. I have also gone through the specific provisions under CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 and, also examined the facts of this case with the cases relied on by the learned counsel for the Applicant, referred to above. I find that the issue cropped in the instant case is akin to the issue arose and determined by this Bench in the cases of Rajnish Kumar [supra]; Sanatan Mallick [supra] & Medini Prasad Dash [supra] which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in WP (C) No. 13124 of 2018 dated 09.05.2022. Hence, by applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of O.K.Bhardwaj [supra] and matters already decided by this Bench in the referred cases, charge sheet dated 30.01.2024, order of Disciplinary Authority dated 11.07.2024 and order of Appellate authority dated 10.10.2024(A/5) are hereby set aside/quashed. As a consequence, the respondents are directed to refund the amount, if any, already recovered from the applicant forthwith.

7. In the result, this OA stands allowed. No costs.

(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS)

Member (Admn.)

RK/PS RAVI KUMAR