A. SANKAR Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under assail is the Order, dtd. 2/8/2019 in O.A. No.1139 of 2014 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench. The unsuccessful Applicant before the Tribunal has preferred the present Writ Petition before this Court.

(2.) (i) The Petitioner was working as GDS BPM @ Thavalaveeranpatti Branch Post Office from 3/4/1988 onwards. On 13/2/2013, the Inspector of Posts, Manapparai Sub-Division had inspected the Post Office and placed him under put off duty and it was ratified by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Karur Division. The Respondents had issued charge memo under Rule 10 of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct & Engagement) Rule 2011 with two charges. After conducting enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority had removed the Petitioner from service on 30/12/2013. The main charges levelled against him was shortage of amount of Rs.16,899.35. When the Mail Overseer inspected the Office, since the building in which the BPO was functioning was in a damaged condition, he had kept the amount safely in his residence. Even though, he stated the above facts to the Main overseer he did not permitted him to take back money which is 300 meters away from the Post Office. As per rules of Postal Department, the Post Master were permitted to keep the cash in safe place, which can be produced for inspection as and when necessary. The allegation of misappropriation of money, which came as money order is also a false statement. He has not fabricated the money order receipt, which belong to one Sivalingam. Therefore, he had sought for sending the acknowledgment receipt to Forensic Department for examination, but the Enquiry Officer did not permit the same.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the action initiated against the Petitioner by the Mail Overseer was contrary to the Rule 11 of the Rules for Branch Offices, which permitted the concerned GDS BPM to keep safe custody of the cash at their discretion. The Mail Overseer without any Application of mind intimated the said shortage of cash of Rs.16,899.35 to the Inspector of Post, Manaparai Sub-Division, Manaparai and closed the Branch Post Office and took custody of the keys. He would further submit that at about 12.30 p.m., the Inspector of Police arrived to the Branch Post Office and started inspecting the alleged shortage of cash and the Petitioner had informed that he had kept the cash in safe custody in his house and he was willing to produce the same, provided the Inspector of Post did not permitted to bring the cash. The Inspector of Post, without appreciating the conduct of the Petitioner had initiated the Departmental proceedings. He would submit that the Tribunal has failed to consider the Rule 11 of Rules for Branch Offices and also failed to consider the fact that the building in which the Post Office in question was locked was a public building without any adequate security and it was responsibility of the Petitioner to keep the cash in safe custody. He would submit that the Tribunal ought to have directed the official Respondents to send signature of Mr. Sivalingam for Forensic analysis, as the Petitioner has paid the amount of Rs.3500.00 to the said person. Therefore the order of the Tribunal is liable to be quashed and the Respondents may be directed to reinstate the Petitioner into service with full Back Wages, continuity of service and all other service benefits.