Ahmedabad CAT Order disciplinary actions initiated against postal employees
Central Administrative Tribunal (Ahmedabad Bench) Case Summary
Download Ahmedabad CAT Order disciplinary actions initiated against postal employees in PDF
Introduction
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ahmedabad Bench, adjudicated on a series of Original Applications (OAs) filed by Dinesh Bachubhai Waghela and other applicants regarding disciplinary actions initiated against them by the postal authorities. The lead case, OA No. 232/2022, was used as a reference for adjudication of similar cases.
Background of the Case
Dinesh Bachubhai Waghela, a Postal Assistant at Gondal Head Office, filed an application challenging disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The case arose from allegations of misconduct during his tenure at Bhayavadar Sub Post Office between May 25, 2017, and June 13, 2018. The allegations pertained to his failure to prevent unauthorized access to the post office by a Small Savings Agent (SSA), which allegedly facilitated fraudulent transactions amounting to Rs. 41,00,000.
Key Disciplinary Actions Challenged
The applicant challenged the following orders:
Charge Memorandum (06.07.2021) under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Penalty Order (30.11.2021) directing recovery of Rs. 17,41,565 in 101 installments from his salary.
Appellate Authority’s Order (11.03.2022) upholding the penalty imposed.
Revisionary Authority’s Order (17.08.2023) dismissing the applicant’s revision petition.
Reliefs Sought by the Applicant
The applicant requested the Tribunal to:
Quash and set aside the charge memorandum and all related disciplinary orders.
Refund the recovered salary amount with 18% interest per annum.
Restrain the authorities from making further recoveries from his salary.
Impose exemplary costs on the responsible officers initiating the disciplinary proceedings.
Applicant’s Defense
The applicant contended that:
He had no authority to permit or prevent the SSA’s entry into the post office, which was the responsibility of the Sub-Postmaster (SPM).
The round MO stamp was not in his exclusive custody but was frequently used by multiple staff members, including MTS personnel.
The blank passbooks were under the control of the Sub-Postmaster, and he had no role in their alleged misuse.
Tribunal’s Observations
The Tribunal noted that multiple applicants faced similar disciplinary actions based on common facts and circumstances. The matter was, therefore, consolidated and adjudicated together to ensure uniformity in the decision-making process.
Conclusion
The Tribunal's decision in this case will set a precedent for the other connected matters. The judgment will determine whether the disciplinary actions taken against the applicants were lawful and whether they are entitled to relief as sought. The final verdict on the applicant’s plea for relief and refund of recovered amounts is awaited.
No comments