Ran Bahadur Singh vs Union Of India on 4 November 2026

1. Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Government of India, New Delhi.

2. Director Postal Services (Headquarters), Office of Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow.

3. Senior Superintendent, Railway Mail Service ‘O’ Division, Lucknow.

..…..Respondents By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta

ORDER (ORAL) Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to punishment, the applicant has sought following reliefs: “(a) The Hon‟ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to set aside the orders dated 30.06.2014 and 16.12.2015 passed by the opposite party No. 3 and 2 as contained in Annexure No. 1 and 2 respectively to this original application.

(b) It is further prayed that the Hon‟ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct to the opposite parties to pay the amount which has been awarded as a penalty and has been recovered along with interest @ 18% per annum to the applicant, in the interest of justice.

(c) Any such other order or direction which this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(d) Allow this Original Application with cost.”

2.1 The facts of the case are that the applicant, while working on the post of Sorting Assistant (SA) under the respondents, was proceeded against departmentally with the issue of charge sheet dated 24.12.2013 under rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 [CCS(CCA) Rules]. The charge against the applicant was that while working as CMS in O-16 IN/1 section, he received mail list prepared by SPC/2 Moradabad Hub, but he neither physically checked the Speed Post bags at the time of receipt or at the time of despatch; that he prepared the mail list for SPC Lucknow/1 with several corrections and the mail list of O-16 IN/1 dated 18.08.2012 had grand total of 25 while carbonic mail list available at Lucknow Sorting Hub/1 dated 19.08.2012 had grand total of 24; that due to this negligence, one speed post bag closed by SPC/2 Moradabad Hub dated 18.08.2012 containing 198 SPAs was lost in transit with valuable documents and passports leading to litigation before Lok Adalat, Moradabad and award of compensation to the litigants. 2.2 The disciplinary authority, after considering the applicant’s representation dated 17.02.2014 against the charge sheet, imposed the punishment of recovery of Rs. 63,000 from the applicant vide order dated 30.06.2014. The applicant retired from service on 31.07.2014. The applicant’s appeal dated 22.09.2014 was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 16.12.2015. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant’s first objection is that he had asked for several documents, but only some documents were supplied to him by the respondents. His second objection is that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority passed their orders arbitrarily without considering the plea taken by the applicant. The third objection of the applicant is that section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 provides for exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage; yet financial liability has been fastened upon him based on the award of the Lok Adalat. The applicant’s fourth objection is that the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the respondents in connection with the incident was against one Banwari Lal and not against him and even in that matter the investigating officer filed a final report on 31.12.2012 as he did not find any cogent evidence.

4. The respondents contend that due to the negligence of the applicant one speed post bag was lost resulting in institution of four cases in Lok Adalat, Moradabad wherein compensation of Rs. 36,000 was awarded in Case No. 22/2013, Rs. 54,000 in Case No. 23/2013 and Rs. 36,000 in Case No. 24/2013; that the Writ Petitions (No. 13094/2014, 13097/2014 and 13095/2014, respectively) filed by the respondents came to be dismissed by Hon’ble High Court on 24.07.2014; that the out of three SLP(C)s preferred before Hon’ble Supreme Court, SLP(C) No. 14773/2015 and 6381/2015 were dismissed vide orders dated 21.08.2015 and 13.04.2015, respectively, while in SLP(C) No. 6415/2015, the respondents herein were directed to deposit the amount before the Lok Adalat vide order dated 13.04.2015; and that the applicant and Banwari Lal were both awarded penalty of Rs. 63,000 each, i.e., 50% of total compensation decreed by the Lok Adalat.

5. We have heard both the parties.

6.0 Documents 6.1 We begin with the applicant’s first objection that he was not supplied some of the documents asked by him. It is noted that the applicant asked for 11 specific documents vide his letter dated 27.01.2014 and out of these, 9 documents were supplied to him by the respondents vide letter dated 30.01.2014. The two documents that were not supplied were: „photocopies of register‟s pages of MG-II of MA Lucknow/RMS/1 dt 19.08.2012 showing figures of SP bags received from O-16 IN dt 18.08.2012 and despatched to SPC Lucknow‟ and „details of amount paid by the Department as compensation in compliance of order of the Lok Adalat, Moradabad‟. The question that arises is whether non-supply of these two documents caused any prejudice to the applicant in the departmental proceedings.

6.2 The core of the allegation against the applicant was that due to his negligence, one speed post bag was lost causing loss to the Department of Posts. The charge sheet mentioned that the mail list with O-16 IN/1 dated 18.08.2012 showed a grand total of 25 while the carbonic mail list with Lucknow Sorting Hub/1 dated 19.08.2012 showed grand total of 24. In this context, it is noted that the two documents, i.e., the „mail list of O-16/IN dated 18.08.2012 for SPC Lucknow‟ and the „mail list of MA Lucknow IMS/1 dated 19.08.2012 for SPC Lucknow‟ were supplied to the applicant. 6.3 In his representation dated 17.02.2014, the applicant stated that: “2. O-16 is a heavy section and carries a lot of mails. When O-16 IN section terminated at Lucknow point, a ML for SP Hub Lko RMS/1 was prepared by me and when the mail was received by MA/1 Lucknow RMS, the total of 24 SP bags were counted, hence a total of 24/x=24 was given but due to rush of work and due to heavy mails, correction in original list could not be made…”

It is evident from the above that the applicant admitted that there was discrepancy in the original list mentioning 25 bags and the carbon copy list which mentioned 24 bags and that he failed to correct the discrepancy. There was no controversy regarding the receipt of 24 bags, as their receipt was confirmed by the receiving officials whose statements were supplied to the applicant. Given this position, we fail to comprehend how the non-supply of document relating to receiving register could have caused prejudice to the applicant. 6.4 The other document not supplied to the applicant was the details of compensation paid to the litigants whose items were lost in compliance of order of Lok Adalat, Moradabad. It is observed that non supply of this document also caused no prejudice to the applicant as the disciplinary authority has rightly observed in his order dated 30.06.2014 that the Department was duty bound to pay the compensation. 7.0 Arbitrary orders 7.1 The applicant’s second objection is that the impugned orders are arbitrary as the grounds cited by him have not been considered therein. 7.2 Perusal of disciplinary authority’s order dated 30.06.2014 reveals that the points raised by the applicant in his representation dated 17.02.2014 along with point-wise finding on each point are mentioned therein. A similar position obtains in regard to the appellate authority’s order dated 16.12.2015 in which 15 points raised by the applicant in his appeal are mentioned and the opinion of the appellate authority has been recorded on each point. Given this position, it cannot be said that the points raised by the applicant have not been considered in the impugned orders dated 30.06.2014 and 16.12.2015. 8.0 Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 8.1 The applicant’s third objection is that he cannot be held liable for any lost item in terms of section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 extracted below: “6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of

transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.” (emphasis supplied) It is noted that though section 6 affords protection to the officer of the Post Office from liability by reason of loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, such immunity is not absolute or unlimited. Fraudulent or wilful act or default are the three specific circumstances in which such statutory immunity would cease to be applicable. 8.2 Be that as it may, in view of the compensation ordered by the Lok Adalat, Moradabad which was upheld by Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court, the relevant question is whether the respondents could have recovered the loss caused due to the lost postal article from the delinquent official. 8.3 In the above context, it is noted that recovery of pecuniary loss is permissible in terms of rule 11 of the CCS(CCA) Rules: “11. Penalties: The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely:- Minor Penalties -

(i) censure;

(ii) withholding of his promotion;

(iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders; …”

In view of the penalty prescribed in rule 11(iii) of the CCS(CCA) Rules quoted above, we hold that the respondents had the authority to recover the pecuniary loss caused to the Government from the applicant. Invocation of section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898

would not be of assistance to the applicant in the departmental proceedings, in our view.

9.0 Investigation pursuant to FIR

9.1 The difference between the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings has been elucidated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Noida Entrepreneurs Association (supra) in the following manner: “… The conceptual difference between departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings have been highlighted by this Court in several cases. Reference may be made to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. T. Srinivas [2004 (7) SCC 442], Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others v. Sarvesh Berry [2005 (10) SCC 471] and Uttaranchal Road Transport Corpn. v. Mansaram Nainwal [2006 (6) SCC 366]. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution is two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act'). Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position…”

9.2 In view of the above position, the outcome of investigation in a criminal case would not affect the departmental proceedings unless such investigation has been relied upon in the departmental proceedings. A perusal of the charge sheet dated 24.12.2013 reveals that it does not rely on investigation undertaken pursuant to FIR.

10. In conclusion, the applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of relief sought. 11.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is dismissed for being devoid of merit. 11.2 Associated MAs also stand disposed of. 11.3 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: 2026.11.13 15:04:41 +05'30'