# Union of India & Ors v. Namo Narain Prasad

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 575
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-09
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 19109 of 2023
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/union-of-india-ors-v-namo-narain-prasad-52391
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Enhancing punishment
- CCS CCA Rules, 1965 - Rule 23, 29 -
The bone of contention is whether it
was
permissible
for
the
revisable
authority
to
have
invoked
the
provisions contained under Rule 29
(1)(vi) of the Rules, 1965 or not for
enhancing the punishment. (Para 29)

The judgment in the case of Vikrambhai
Maganbhai Chaudhary (infra) holds that
notification
dated
29.5.2001
is
unsustainable in the eyes of law as
there is no
period
stipulated
for
exercising
the
revisable
powers
u/Rule 29(1)(vi) of the Rules, 1965.
(Para 34)
In the present case, it is evident that the notice
dated 30.06.2022 issued by the Revisable
Authority, Chief Postmaster General, U.P. Circle
Lucknow is in exercise of the powers u/Rule
29(1)(vi) of the Rules, 1965 after a period of
approximately five years from the date of the
order of the Disciplinary Authority dated
31.10.2017 and approximately after four years
from the date of the order of the Appellate
Authority dated
12.4.2018 on a revision
preferred by the original applicant on 23.5.2018.
(Para 35)

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of
M.M. Srivastava (infra) had the occasion to
consider the provision of Clause (v) Sub-Rule
(1) of Rule 29 of the Rules, 1965 and went on
to hold that the orders are to be passed
within the statutory period that too within
the reasonable time. In so far as the
judgment in the case of K. Raghvan (infra) is
concerned,
the
same
also
speaks
about
exercising of the proceedings within the
reasonable period. (Para 37)

Notably the Disciplinary Authority imposed
punishment on 31.10.2017 currency whereof
was for a period of five years from 1.11.2017 to
31.10.2022 however, prior to one month of
lapsing of the currency of the punishment on
30.9.2022, the order enhancing the punishment
to compulsory retirement has been passed,
while exercising the powers u/Rule 29(1)(vi) of
the Rules, 1965 was thoroughly uncalled for and
not justified in the eyes of law. (Para 39)

B. Violation of principles of natural justice
- As regards the issue of violation of principles
of natural justice on account of the fact that the
allegation of forged vouchers was not part and
parcel of the charge memorandum. (Para 40)

The vouchers came to be submitted by the
original applicant on 21.8.2014 which is before
the the date of issuance of the charge sheet, as
the same came to be issued on 15.9.2014.
Thus,
once
the
said
vouchers
were
in
possession of the Disciplinary Authority then it
was required of that the said allegations were to
be made the part and the parcel of the charge
sheet if to be inquired into. Moreover, the
original applicant was aware about the said
allegation as the same stood noticed in the
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inquiry report as well as in the order of the
Disciplinary Authority confirmed upto appellate
authority. The said findings have not been
questioned by the original applicant. (Para 43)

C. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction
u/Article 226 of the Constitution of India
may not interfere with the quantum of the
punishment sought to be imposed upon
the delinquent as what is to be seen is the
decision making process and not the
ultimate decision until and unless the
same is disproportionate to the gravity of
the charge and shocks the conscience -
There is no quarrel to the said proposition since
the facts and circumstances of the present case,
are on different footing and in the opinion of the
Court the Revisional Authority could not have
exercised powers u/Rule 29(1)(vi) of the Rules,

## Text

_Characters 0–39,879 of 55,169. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39879 for what follows._

9 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Namo Narain Prasad
575
(Mechanical) and give notional benefits
including seniority in the event any of his
juniors was promoted, with effect from the
date of promotion of such junior person.

18. Appropriate order shall be passed
within a period of one month from the date
of production of certified copy of this
order.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 575
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ A No. 19109 of 2023

Union of India & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Namo Narain Prasad ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Krishna Agarawal

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Tanuj Shahi

A. Service Law - Enhancing punishment
- CCS CCA Rules, 1965 - Rule 23, 29 -
The bone of contention is whether it
was
permissible
for
the
revisable
authority
to
have
invoked
the
provisions contained under Rule 29
(1)(vi) of the Rules, 1965 or not for
enhancing the punishment. (Para 29)

The judgment in the case of Vikrambhai
Maganbhai Chaudhary (infra) holds that
notification
dated
29.5.2001
is
unsustainable in the eyes of law as
there is no
period
stipulated
for
exercising
the
revisable
powers
u/Rule 29(1)(vi) of the Rules, 1965.
(Para 34)
In the present case, it is evident that the notice
dated 30.06.2022 issued by the Revisable
Authority, Chief Postmaster General, U.P. Circle
Lucknow is in exercise of the powers u/Rule
29(1)(vi) of the Rules, 1965 after a period of
approximately five years from the date of the
order of the Disciplinary Authority dated
31.10.2017 and approximately after four years
from the date of the order of the Appellate
Authority dated
12.4.2018 on a revision
preferred by the original applicant on 23.5.2018.
(Para 35)

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of
M.M. Srivastava (infra) had the occasion to
consider the provision of Clause (v) Sub-Rule
(1) of Rule 29 of the Rules, 1965 and went on
to hold that the orders are to be passed
within the statutory period that too within
the reasonable time. In so far as the
judgment in the case of K. Raghvan (infra) is
concerned,
the
same
also
speaks
about
exercising of the proceedings within the
reasonable period. (Para 37)

Notably the Disciplinary Authority imposed
punishment on 31.10.2017 currency whereof
was for a period of five years from 1.11.2017 to
31.10.2022 however, prior to one month of
lapsing of the currency of the punishment on
30.9.2022, the order enhancing the punishment
to compulsory retirement has been passed,
while exercising the powers u/Rule 29(1)(vi) of
the Rules, 1965 was thoroughly uncalled for and
not justified in the eyes of law. (Para 39)

B. Violation of principles of natural justice
- As regards the issue of violation of principles
of natural justice on account of the fact that the
allegation of forged vouchers was not part and
parcel of the charge memorandum. (Para 40)

The vouchers came to be submitted by the
original applicant on 21.8.2014 which is before
the the date of issuance of the charge sheet, as
the same came to be issued on 15.9.2014.
Thus,
once
the
said
vouchers
were
in
possession of the Disciplinary Authority then it
was required of that the said allegations were to
be made the part and the parcel of the charge
sheet if to be inquired into. Moreover, the
original applicant was aware about the said
allegation as the same stood noticed in the
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inquiry report as well as in the order of the
Disciplinary Authority confirmed upto appellate
authority. The said findings have not been
questioned by the original applicant. (Para 43)

C. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction
u/Article 226 of the Constitution of India
may not interfere with the quantum of the
punishment sought to be imposed upon
the delinquent as what is to be seen is the
decision making process and not the
ultimate decision until and unless the
same is disproportionate to the gravity of
the charge and shocks the conscience -
There is no quarrel to the said proposition since
the facts and circumstances of the present case,
are on different footing and in the opinion of the
Court the Revisional Authority could not have
exercised powers u/Rule 29(1)(vi) of the Rules,
1965. (Para 44)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. U.O.I. Vs Vikrambhai Maganbhai Chaudhari,
(2011) 7 SCC 321 (Para 20)

2. M.M. Srivastava Vs U.O.I., 1985 LAB. I.C.
1757 (Para 20)

3. U.O.I. & ors.Vs K. Raghavan, 2012 SCC
Kerala 31795 (Para 20)

Present petition assails the order dated
01.08.2023 of the Central Administrative
Tribunal
Lucknow
Bench,
Lucknow,
upholding the order dated 25.3.2018 of
the Appellate Authority confirming the
punishment imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority on 31.10.2017 reverting the
original applicant (respondent here) for
the post of Senior Postmaster to Dak
Assistant for a period of five years while
fixing the pay at the minimum of the scale
of Dak Assistant for a period of five years
with
cumulative
effect
on
future
increments
for
the
reversion
period,
recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,88,060/-
and the said period shall not be treated as
dies non but only be for computation of
retiral benefits.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1.

Impugned
in
the
present
proceedings at the instance of Union of
India through Director General Post,
Department of Posts, New Delhi (In short
'Postal Department') is an order dated
1.8.2023 of the Central Administrative
Tribunal Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (In
short Tribunal) passed in O.A. No.541 of
2022, (Namo Narain Prasad vs. Union of
India & others) whereby the original
application preferred by Namo Narain
Prasad (In short 'original applicant') came
to be disposed of while setting aside the
order dated 30.9.2022 of the Revisional
Authority and upholding the order dated
25.3.2018 of the Appellate Authority
confirming the punishment imposed by the
Disciplinary
Authority
on
31.10.2017
reverting the original applicant for the post
of Senior Postmaster to Dak Assistant for a
period of five years while fixing the pay at
the minimum of the scale of Dak Assistant
for a period of five years with cumulative
effect on future increments for the
reversion period, recovery of an amount of
Rs.3,88,060/- and the said period shall not
be treated as dies non but only be for
computation of retiral benefits.

2. A joint statement has been made by
the learned counsel for the rival parties that
they do no propose to file any further
affidavits and the writ petition be decided
at the admission stage on the basis of the
documents available on record. With the
consent of the parties, the writ petition is
being decided at the admission stage.

Facts

3. The case of the original applicant
before the Tribunal was that while he was
discharging the duties on the post of Sub
9 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Namo Narain Prasad
577
Post Master, Sikanderpur, Bus Stand from
7.8.2012
to
26.6.2012
alleging
irregularities, was placed under suspension
vide order dated 26.6.2014. A major
penalty charge memorandum was issued on
15.9.2014 containing as many as two
articles of charges. An Inquiry Officer
came to be appointed to conduct inquiry
against the original applicant. The Inquiry
Officer tendered its inquiry report dated
31.8.2017 holding the two article of
charges stood proved against the original
applicant. A show cause notice is also
stated to have been issued to which the
original applicant submitted his reply and
thereafter
on
31.10.2017,
the
Superintendent
Post
Office,
Ballia
Division, Ballia proceeded to pass an order
imposing as many as four punishments: (a)
reversion from the post of Sub Post Master
to Dak Assistant from the pay scale of
Rs.37,500/- to Rs.25,500/- w.e.f. 1.11.2017
for a period of five years (b) fixation of the
pay at the minimum of scale of Dak
Assistant for a period of five years with
cumulative effect on future increment (c)
no increment was made admissible for the
period of reversion (d) an amount of
Rs.3,88,060/- to be deposited by the
original applicant to be adjusted.

4. Being aggrieved against the
punishment order dated 31.10.2017 of the
Disciplinary
Authority,
the
original
applicant
preferred
an
appeal
on
12.12.2017 under Rule 23 of the CCS CCA
Rules,1965 (In short Rules, 1965) before
the Director Postal Services, Office of
P.M.G., Varanasi, writ petitioner no.4. The
said appeal came to be rejected on
13.4.2018
confirming
the
punishment
imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

5. Against the appellate order dated
13.4.2018 confirming the punishment order
dated 31.10.2017 of the Disciplinary
Authority, the original applicant claims to
have preferred revision before the writ
petitioner no.3, Chief Postmaster General,
U.P. Circle, Lucknow on 23.5.2018.

6. According to the original applicant,
the revision preferred by him remained
pending and during the interregnum period
the punishment order dated 31.10.2017
came to be implemented. As per the
original applicant the Revisional Authority,
Chief Postmaster General U.P. Circle
Lucknow proceeded to issue a notice dated
30.6.2022 while exercising powers under
Rule 29(1)(vi) of the Rules, 1965 intending
to revise/ enhance the punishment inflicted
vide order dated 31.10.2017 of the
Disciplinary Authority.

7. The original applicant on the
receipt
of
the
same
tendered
its
objection/reply on 20.7.2022 and thereafter
on 30.9.2022 the Chief Postmaster General,
U.P.
Circle
Lucknow
exercising
its
revisional jurisdiction proceeded to pass an
order for compulsory retirement.

8. Assailing the order dated 30.9.2022
of the Revisional Authority, order dated
13.4.2018 of the Appellate Authority and
order dated 31.10.2017 of the Disciplinary
Authority, the original applicant preferred
O.A. No.332/00541 of 2022 seeking
following reliefs:

"(i) Issue order or direction to
respondents to quash the Revision order
dated 30.9.2022, appellant order dated
13.4.2018, and punishment order dated
31.10.2017 contained in Annexure No.1,2
and
3
respectively
to
the
Original
Application in the interest of justice.

(ii) Issue order or direction to
declare
that
Rule
29(1)(vi)
of
the
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
CCS(CCA)1965 cannot be invoked to issue
show cause notice and thereafter enhance
punishment order after six months of the
date of punishment order sought to be
enhanced.

(iii) Issue order or direction to
respondents to reinstate the applicant on
the post of Sub Post Master (SPM) and to
take work by withdrawing Respondent
letter dated 6.10.2022 and pay salary
month to month, treating the punishment
order contained in Annexure No 1,2 and 3
to the Original Application as nonest in the
eyes of law and consequently grant all
consequential benefits of arrears of salary,
seniority and other service benefits with
12% interest.

Issue order or direction to
respondents to consider and pass order
regularising the suspension period from
25.6.2014 to 19.10.2014 and to pay salary
for the aforesaid period.

Grant any other relief which this
Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in facts and
circumstances of the case. Cost of this
Original
Application
may
please
be
awarded."

9. On being noticed, a reply was filed
by the writ petitioners herein to which a
rejoinder affidavit was also filed.

10. The original application came up
for consideration before the Tribunal on
1.8.2023 wherein the original application
preferred by the original applicant came to
be disposed of

"In view of above, OA is disposed
of in the following terms: (a) Impugned
order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the
Revising Authority whereby applicant has
been compulsorily retired is quashed.

(b) The punishment order dated
31.10.2017
passed
by
Disciplinary
Authority is confirmed and Respondents/
competent authority are directed to execute
the same.

(c) Consequently, the applicant is
entitled to reinstatement in service. The
respondents
are
directed
to
issue
appropriate office order in this regard
immediately but not later than 06 (six)
weeks from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.

(d) We, however, direct that the
applicant will not be entitled to back wages
on the principle of "no work no pay"
although a period of his absence from the
date of passing the order by Revising
Authority shall not be treated as dies non,
and the same will be counted for retiral
benefits.

(e) There shall be no order as to
costs."

11. Questioning the said order, Postal
department/writ petitioners have filed the
present writ petition.

12. This Court on 16.11.2023
entertained the writ petition while issuing
notice to the original applicant and passed
an interim order providing that the
reinstatement of the original applicant shall
subject to the final outcome of the writ
petition.

Arguments of the counsel for the
Writ Petitioners/Postal Department

13. Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned
counsel for the Postal department/writ
petitioners has sought to argue that the
judgement and the order of the Tribunal
impugned in the present writ petition
cannot be sustained for the single moment
inasmuch as the Tribunal has misconstrued
the entire controversy and adopted an
incorrect approach. Elaborating the said
9 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Namo Narain Prasad
579
submission, it has been submitted that the
original applicant while posted as Sub Post
Master, Sikanderpur, Bus Stand for the
period from 7.8.2012 to 26.6.2014 has
committed serious irregularities resulting to
the fact that on 26.6.2014, he was placed
under
suspension
and
thereafter
on
15.9.2014
a
major
penalty
charge
memorandum containing two articles of
charges was served upon him. In the light
of the provisions of the Rules, 1965, the
inquiry proceedings stood initiated while
appointing
an
Inquiry
Officer,
who
conducted the inquiry in accordance with
law after giving full opportunity to the
delinquent
employee/original
applicant,
and the charges stood proved against him.
A show cause notice was also issued to the
original applicant accompanied with the
inquiry report to which the original
applicant submitted his reply and after
considering the same on 31.10.2017 the
punishment order was passed against which
an appeal was preferred which came to be
rejected on 13.4.2018 confirming the order
of the Disciplinary Authority. Against the
order of the Disciplinary Authority and the
Appellate Authority, the original applicant
preferred revision under Rule 29 of the
Rules,
1965
before
the
Revisional
Authority, the writ petitioner no.3, who in
terms of the provisions contained under
Rule 29 (1)(vi) of the Rules, 1965
proceeded to issue notice dated 30.6.2022
intending to revise/enhance the punishment
imposed by the Disciplinary Authority as
confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The
original applicant submitted his reply on
20.7.2022 and after considering the same,
the order dated 30.9.2022 has been passed
enhancing the punishment to compulsory
retirement.

14. Submission is that once the
charges which were obviously grave and
serious in nature stood proved against the
original
applicant
in
the
inquiry
proceedings and the same stood accepted
by the Disciplinary Authority and remained
intact throughout till the appellate stage
then while exercising of the powers
conferred under Rule 29 (1)(vi) of the
Rules, 1965, it is always open for the
Revisional Authority to enhance the
punishment in that regard.

15. It is the submission of the writ
petitioners
that
there
has
been
no
procedural infirmity in the entire decision
making process as at all stages and levels,
the original applicant was given full
opportunity of hearing.

16. While assailing the findings
returned in the order impugned of the
Tribunal, it is contended that a totally
perverse and incorrect finding has been
recorded to the extent that the charge of
submission of forged vouchers was not the
part and the parcel of
the charge
memorandum inasmuch as during the
course of the inquiry proceedings, when the
original applicant submitted its reply to the
charge memorandum then certain vouchers
were submitted which on enquiry were
found to be forged thus, there was no
question of the said allegation to be the part
of the articles of the charge/charge
memorandum.

17. To put it otherwise the contention
is that the allegation of submission of
forged vouchers is in furtherance of the
articles of charges which have been
mentioned in the charge sheet and the same
are interwoven and intermingled with it and
is an offshoot itself. It is also argued that
inquiry officer is under legal obligation to
deal with all the contentions raised by the
respective parties during the inquiry
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceedings in order to determine as to
whether the delinquent is guilty or not and
the in the present case based upon the
submission of
the vouchers
by
the
delinquent when inquiry was held then it
revealed that the same was forged thus, by
no stretch of imagination it can be said that
inquiry was conducted with respect to a
charge which was not mentioned in the
charge sheet.

18. Additionally, it has been argued
that once the finding of submission of
forged
vouchers
remains
intact
and
unquestionable
then
the
natural
consequences will follow as the Courts of
law would not interfere with the ultimate
decision but would invoke writ jurisdiction
in case there is any procedural infirmity in
decision making process.

19. Lastly, it has been argued that
once the Rule 29(1)(vi) of the Rules, 1965
provides for enhancement of punishment
and the same has been enhanced after
according satisfaction then merely because
sufficient time had lapsed from the date of
the imposition of the punishment by
Disciplinary Authority term whereof was
five years would not be a relevant factor as
even before the lapsing of the period of
punishment imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority on 31.10.2022, prior to it on
30.6.2022 a notice came to be issued for
enhancement of the punishment and
ultimate order came to be passed on
30.9.2022. It is is thus, prayed that the
order of the Tribunal be set aside and the
writ petition be allowed in toto.

Arguments of the counsel for the original
applicant

20. Countering the submission of the
learned counsel for the writ petitioners, Sri
Tanuj Shahi, who appears for the original
applicant has submitted that the order of the
Tribunal needs no interference in the
present proceedings. It is submitted that the
exercise of power under Rule 29(1)(vi) of
the
Rules,
1965
was
thoroughly
impermissible particularly in view of the
fact that the order of the Disciplinary
Authority
dated
31.10.2017
was
implemented and the currency of the
punishment
was
from
1.11.2017
to
30.10.2022 however, on 30.6.2022 a notice
has been issued under Rule 29(1)(vi) of the
Rules, 1965 and thereafter on 30.9.2022
now an order enhancing the punishment to
compulsory retirement has been passed.
According to him the exercise of the
powers under Rule 29(1)(vi) of the Rules,
1965 is to be within the reasonable period
and not after a period of approximately five
years from the date of the passing of the
order
of
the
Disciplinary
Authority,
31.10.2017 that too on a revision preferred
by the original applicant against the order
of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate
Authority with a prayer for setting aside the
same. He seeks to rely upon the judgement
in the case of Union of India v.
Vikrambhai
Maganbhai
Chaudhari
(2011) 7 SCC 321, M.M. Srivastava v.
Union of India 1985 LAB. I.C. 1757 and
Union of India & others v. K. Raghavan,
2012 SCC Kerala 31795.

21. It is also the submission of the
learned counsel for the original applicant
that might be the issue relatable to forged
vouchers came to be noticed in the inquiry
report but the same would not suffice and
would not be in conformity with the Rules
inasmuch under the statutory Rules a
specific charge is to be reproduced in the
memorandum of charges supported by
documentary evidence and witnesses in
order to bring home the charges and in case
9 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Namo Narain Prasad
581
according to the writ petitioners/Postal
department the same was to be inquired
into then a supplementary charge sheet
containing the said charge ought to have
been issued. He further submits that the
entire procedure adopted by the postal
department/writ petitioners is foreign to the
service jurisprudence and thus the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.

22. Before embarking the inquiry
upon the tenability of the argument of the
rival parties, it would be apposite to
reproduce the statutory rules, government
orders/circulars and the documents which
have material therein in the controversy in
question.

STATUTORY
RULES,
NOTIFICATIONS & DOCUMENTS

CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 :-

29. [Revision ]

(1)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in these rules―

(i) the President; or

(ii) the Comptroller and AuditorGeneral, in the case of a Government
servant serving in the Indian Audit and
Accounts Department; or

2[(iii) the Member (Personnel)
Postal Services Board in the case of a
Government servant serving in or under the
Postal
Services
Board
and
[Adviser
(Human
Resources
Development),
Department of Telecommunications] in the
case of a Government servant serving in or
under the Telecommunications Board ]; or

(iv) the Head of a Department
directly under the Central Government, in
the case of a Government servant serving
in a department or office (not being the
Secretariat or the Posts and Telegraphs
Board), under the control of such Head of a
Department; or

(v)
the
Appellate
Authority,
within six months of the date of the order
proposed to be [ revised ]; or

(vi) any other authority specified
in this behalf by the President by a general
or special order, and within such time as
may be prescribed in such general or
special order;

at any time, either on his or its
own motion or otherwise call for the
records of any inquiry and 2 revise ] any
order made under these rules or under the
rules repealed by Rule 34 from which an
appeal is allowed, but which no appeal has
been preferred or from which no appeal is
allowed, consultation with the Commission
where such consultation is necessary, and
may―may from after

(a) confirm, modify or set aside
the order; or

(b) confirm, reduce, enhance or
set aside the penalty imposed by the order,
or impose any penalty where no penalty
has been imposed; or

(c) remit the case to the authority
which made the order to or any other
authority directing such authority to make
such further enquiry as it may consider
proper in the circumstances of the case; or

(d) pass such other orders as it
may deem fit:

3[
Provided
that
no
order
imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be
made by any revising authority unless the
Government servant concerned has been
given a reasonable opportunity of making a
representation
against
the
penalty
proposed and where it is proposed to
impose any of the penalties specified in
Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 or to enhance
the penalty imposed by the order sought to
be revised to any of the penalties specified
in those clauses, and if an inquiry under
Rule 14 has not already been held in the
case, no such penalty shall be imposed
582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
except after an inquiry in the manner laid
down in Rule 14 subject to the provisions of
Rule 19, and except after consultation with
the Commission where such consultation is
necessary [ and the Government servant
has
been
given
an
opportunity
of
representing against the advice of the
Commission]:

Provided further that no power of
2[ revision] shall be exercised by the
Comptroller
and
Auditor-General,
3[
Member
(Personnel),
Postal
Services
Board,
Adviser
(Human
Resources
Department),
Department
of
Telecommunications] or the Head of
Department, as the case may be, unless―

(i) the authority which made the
order in appeal, or

(ii) the authority to which an
appeal would lie, where no appeal ha been
preferred, is subordinate to him.

(2)
No
proceeding
for
2[
revision] shall be commenced until after-
(i) the expiry of the period of limitation for
an appeal, or (ii) the disposal of the
appeal, where any such appeal has be
preferred.

(3) An application for 2[ revision
] shall be dealt with in the same man as if it
were an appeal under these rules.

23. Notification dated 29.5.2001:-

"MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS
(DEPARTMENT OF POSTS)
New Delhi, 29-5-2001
NOTIFICATION

No. S.O... In exercise of the
powers conferred by Clause (vi) of sub-
rule (1) of Rule 29 of the Central Civil
Services (Classification, Control & Appeal)
Rules, 1965, the President hereby specifies
that in the case of a government servant
serving in the Department of Posts, for
whom
the
appellate
authority
is
subordinate to the authority designated as
the Principal Chief Postmaster General or
the Chief Postmaster General (other than
the Chief Postmaster General of Senior
Administrative Grade) of a Circle, the said
Principal Chief Postmaster General or the
said Chief Postmaster General, as the case
may be, shall be the revising authority for
the purpose of exercising the powers under
the said Rule 29.

(No. C-11011/1/2001-VP)
sd/-
(B.P. Sharma)
Director (VP)"

24. Charge memorandum/Article to
charges dated 15.9.2014 :-

अनुच्छेद-1

यह भक उक्त श्री नगोनािाण प्रसाद उपडाकपाल
भसकन्दिपुि बस स्र्ैडड ने भदनांक 07.08.2012 से
26.06.2014 तक उक्त पद पि कायट किते हुए इस कायाटलय के
स्वीकृभत/आदेश के भबना भवभिन्न मदो में कभर्थत रूप से खचट रूपया
388060/- (रू० तीन लाख अठासी हर्ाि साठ) पार्ट आफ कैश
भदखाया है इस प्रकाि उनके द्वािा मात्र रूपया 388060/- (रू०
तीन लाख अठासी हर्ाि साठ) का दुभवटभनयोर्न भकया गया है।

अतः एतद् द्वािा आिोभपत है भक उक्त श्री नमोनािायण
प्रसाद ने अपने उक्त कृत्य से P &T FHB Volume-I के
भनयम 103 एवं 334 का उल्लंघन भकया तर्था वांभछत कतटव्य
भनष्ठा एवं सत्यभनष्ठा बनाये िखने में असफल िहकि केन्रीय भसभवल
सेवा (आचिण) भनयमावली 1964 के भनयम 3(I)(i) एवं (ii)
का िी उल्लंघन भकया।
अनुच्छेद-II

यह भक उक्त श्री नमोनािायण प्रसाद उपडाकपाल
भसकन्दिपुि बस स्र्ेडड ने भदनांक 07.08.2012 से
26.06.2014 तक उक्त पद पि कायट किते हुए डाकघि से
संबंभधत तर्था कभर्थत भवभिन्न मदो में भकए गए खचट का भवविण एवं
बाऊचि से संबंभधत कोई िी िभर्स्र्ि या अभिलेख संधारित नहीं
भकये। इससे रूपया 388060/- (रू० तीन लाख अठासी हर्ाि
साठ) का भवविण स्पि नहीं हो सका।

अत एतद् द्वािा आिोभपत है भक उक्त श्री नमोनािायण
प्रसाद के उक्त कृत्य से P&T FHB Volume-I के भनयम
9 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Namo Narain Prasad
583
354 एवं 357 का उल्लंघन भकया तर्था वांभछत कतटव्य भनष्ठा एवं
सत्यभनष्ठा बनाये िखने में असफल िहकि केन्रीय भसभवल
सेवा(आचिण) भनयमावली 1964 के भनयम 3(I)(i) एवं (ii)
का िी उल्लंघन भकया।

25. Order of the disciplinary
authority dated 31.10.2017"-

अधोहस्ताक्षिी द्वािा समस्त दस्तावेर्ों बयानों प्रदशों
का गहिाई से अध्ययन भकया औि पाया भक आिोभपत कमटचािी द्वािा
भशकायत से पूवट भदनांक 22.07.2013 तक के डीर्ल/पेरोल
वाउचि मंडलीय कायाटलय प्रस्तुत भकए। पेरोल से संबंभधत भनत्य प्रभत
भकए र्ाने वाले खचो को भनयम अनुसाि भहसाब मे नहीं भलया औि
ना ही उसे स्वीकृत किने के भलए भनयम अनुसाि सक्षम अभधकािी
को प्रेभषत भकया। खचों से एवं र्निेर्ि प्रयोग से संबंभधत िभर्स्र्ि िी
भनत्य प्रभत उप डाकघि में आिोभपत कमटचािी द्वािा संघारित नहीं
भकया गया भर्से आिोभपत कमटचािी द्वािा मनमानी तिीके से भनलंबन
अवभध में र्ांच कायटवाही प्रस्ताभवत होने के उपिान्त तैयाि भकया र्ो
भक पूिी तिीके से काल्पभनक व आधािहीन है। आिोभपत कमटचािी
द्वािा स्वंय स्वीकाि भकया गया है भक वह कायट के अभधकता के
कािण खचट से संबंभधत अभिलेख भनत्य प्रभत नहीं बनाता र्था तर्था
खचाट के बाउचसट िी समय से स्वीकृभत हेतु सक्षम अभधकािी को
नहीं िेर् सका। खचों से संबंभधत 15 बडडल बाउचि द्वािा कुल
खचट रू० 396952( तीन लाख भछयान्नवे हर्ाि नौ सो बावन
मात्र ) के आिोभपत कमटचािी द्वािा अपने पत्र भदनांक
22.08.2014 के द्वािा भनलंबन अवभध में मडडलीय कायाटलय
बभलया को िेर्ना दशाटया गया है र्ो यह भसद्ध किता है भक खचों से
संबंभधत बाउचसट समय से स्वीकृत हेतु मंडलीय कायाटलय नही िेर्े
र्ाते र्थे औि ना ही दस्तावेर् भवभधवत समय से बनाया र्ा िहा र्था.
अतः आिोभपत कमटचािी पि लगाया गया आिोप भक वह खचों से
संबंभधत अभिलेख भनयमानुसाि नहीं बना िहे हैं भसद्ध होते है।

र्ांच कािटवाई के दौिान साक्षी श्री उज्र्वल अिवाल
सहायक श्री र्हीि अहमद अंसािी कायाटलय सहायक श्री अिय
शंकि वमाट उप डाकपाल भसकन्दिपुि बस स्र्ैडड के बयानो से इस
आिोप की पुभि होती है भक वाउचि समय से स्वीकृत हेतु सक्षम
अभधकािी को नहीं िेर्े गए सबसे अहम व गंिीि भवषय भक र्ो
बाउचसट खचों के रूप में दशाटए गए वह सिी आिोभपत कमटचािी
द्वािा तैयाि भकए गए है इस बात की पुभि र्ांच अभधकािी द्वािा र्ांच
में की गई इस संबंध में प्रबंधक भकसान सेवा केन्र शंकिपुि बभलया
श्री संदीप कुमाि उपाध्याय का बयान व र्ांच में उसकी पुभि यह
स्पि किती है भक आिोभपत कमटचािी द्वािा खचों से संबंभधत सिी
बाउचसट फर्ी तिीके से तैयाि भकए गए। आिोभपत कमटचािी का यह
कहना है भक श्री संदीप कुमाि उपाध्याय भकसान सेवा केन्र शंकिपुि
बभलया के प्रबंधक नहीं है गलत है अगि वह कहते है भक श्री संदीप
कुमाि उपाध्याय भकसान सेवा केन्र के प्रबंधक नहीं है तो उन्हे र्ांच
किवाई मैं असली प्रबंधक भकसान सेवा केन्र शंकिपुि बभलया के
बयान व र्ांच किवाई में पुभि से स्वतः भसद्ध होता है भक श्री नमो
नािायण प्रसाद द्वािा प्रस्तुत समस्त पेरोल खचट बाउचसट फर्ी है।
पेरोल खचट वाउचसट के फर्ी होने की पुभि श्री चभन्रका िाम मेल
ओविसीयि व श्री बलबीि भसंह तत्कालीन भनिीक्षक डाकघि केन्रीय
बभलया द्वािा िी की गयी। इसके अभतरिक्त ए०सी०र्ी० 17 पि खचट
की पुभि/ गवाही स्वरूप िी र्ीउत िाम र्ी०डी०एस० पैकि
भसकन्दिपुि बभलया के र्ो हस्ताक्षि भकए गए वह िी फर्ी पाए गए
भर्न्हे िी श्री नमो नािायण प्रसाद द्वािा पेरोल खिीदने के भलए
प्रभतभदन लगिघ 80 भक०मी० की दूिी तय की र्बभक भसकन्दिपुि
में डाकघि से कुछ ही दूिी पि पेरोल पंप है वहां से पेरोल नहीं
खिीदा गया बभल्क 80 भकलोमीर्ि दूि से खिीदा गया। र्ो भसद्ध
किता है भक पेरोल िसीद फर्ी तैयाि की गई है। श्री नमो नािायण
प्रसाद अपने वॉउचिों की पुभि के भलए श्री संर्य प्रसाद बचाव गवाह
प्रस्तुत भकया वह पूिी तिह से प्रायोभर्त है क्योंभक आिोभपत कमटचािी
उसकी वैधाभनकता की पुभि नहीं कि सके। श्री नमो नािायण प्रसाद
आिोभपत कमटचािी द्वािा अन्य खचाट के रूप में डाकघि के बाहि
िभबश डलवाने आभद पि भकया गया खचट िी र्ांच में फर्ी पाया
गया क्योंभक डाकघि में कायटित सहकमी द्वािा र्ांच में बताया गया
भक िभबश आभद आिोभपत कमटचािी द्वािा नहीं डलवाई गई।

र्ांच किवाई के दौिान आिोभपत कमटचािी कोई ऐसा
साक्ष्य/दस्तावेर् प्रस्तुत नहीं कि सके र्ो उन पि लगे आिोपों से उन्हें
मुभक्त प्रदान किता हो। आिोभपत कमटचािी द्वािा स्वंय िी फर्ी
वाउचि प्रस्तुत किने की नैभतक भर्म्मेदािी मानकि ही कुल गबभनत
िाभश रू० 388060/- डाकघि के अवगीकृत मद में र्मा की।

र्ांच कािटवाही के उपिांत प्रस्तुत र्ांच साि व उसके
सार्थ प्रस्तुत सम्यक दस्तावेर्ों िाज्य साभक्षयों द्वािा भदए गए बयान व
अन्य परिस्र्थत र्न साक्ष्य के आधाि पि इस भनष्कषट पि पहुंचा ह ं भक
आिोभपत कमटचािी पि लगे आिोप पूणटतया सही हैं तर्था वह कठोि
दंड का पात्र है।

अतः मैं डॉ० अरूण यादव अधीक्षक डाकघि बभलया
श्री नमो नािायण प्रसाद आिोभपत कमटचािी के वतटमान मूल वेतन रू०
37500/- डाक सहायक संवगट के न्यूनतम वेतन रू० 25500
पि भदनांक 01.11.2017 से कम किने का आदेश पारित किता
ह ं सार्थ ही यह दडड अगले पांच वषट ( भदनांक 31.10.2022)
तक संचाई प्रिाव के सार्थ लागू िहेगा। श्री नमो नािायण प्रसाद दंड
अवभध के दौिान कोई िी इंक्रीमेंर् अभर्टत नहीं किेंगे तर्था िभवष्य में
भमलने वाले इन्कीमेर्स को िी संचाई प्रिाव से प्रिाभवत किेगा।
इसके अलावा नमोनािायण प्रसाद आिोभपत कमटचािी द्वािा
यू०सी०आि० में र्मा धनिाभश रू० 388060/- को गाबभनत
धनिाभश के सापेक्ष समायोभर्त भकया र्ाता है।
584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Notice dated 30.6.2022:-
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, INDIA
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POSTMASTER
GENERAL, U.P. CIRCLE, LUCKNOW-01
Memo No. Vig/P-38/2018/5 Dated at
Lucknow the 30-06-2022
NOTICE
Whereas Shri Namo, Narayan Prasad, PA,
Ballia was proceeded against under Rule14 CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 by SPOs Ballia
vide
memo
no.
F/Genral/DP/Namo
Narayan Prasad/14-15 dated 15.09.2014
and penalty of "Reduction of his pay from
Rs.
37,500/-
to
Rs.
25,500/-
w.e.f.
01.11.2017 for a period of five years. It is
further ordered that during the period of
reduction of the pay, the charged official
will not earn increments of pay and this
will have the effect of future increments of
his pay with cumulative effect was awarded
vide
SPOs
Ballia
memo
no.
F/Genral/DP/Namo Narayan Prasad/14-15
dated 31.10.2017. Against the aforesaid
punishment order, he preferred an appeal
dated 12.12.2017 to DPS Varanasi, which
was decided as "Rejected" by DPS
Varanasi vide memo RPV/Vig/Appeal/52/2018 dated 13.04.2018. Now, instant
petition
dated
23.05.2018
has
been
preferred by the petitioner against the said
punishment order. .

2- And whereas the undersigned
in exercise of powers conferred vide Rule29 (1) (vi) CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, intends
to revise the said punishment order
F/Genral/DP/Namo Narayan Prasad/14-15
dated
31.10.2017
due
to
following
reasons:-

a) Allegations leveled against the
petitioner were related to misappropriation
government money which was established
during
the
course
of
oral
inquiry.
Petitioner
has
misappropriated
Rs.
3,88,050/- as cash was found short in his
office was responsible.

b) Petitioner on the one hand has
misappropriated Rs. 3,88,060/- and on
hand created bogus vouchers for justifying
the liability in the office, whereas testimony
of SW-8, Shri Sandeep Kumar Upadhyay
clearly
established
that
vouchers
forwarded by the petitioner were bogus and
fake.

c) Petitioner has forwarded fake
and bogus vouchers of a petrol pump
situated 80 Km. away from Sikandarpur,
which is not justified on any ground.

All the above irregularities are
very serious and grave in nature and
committed by the petitioner.

3-
Now,
therefore,
the
undersigned while deciding the petition of
the petitioner, perused the relevant records
of the case and found that the penalty of
"Reduction of his pay from Rs. 37,500/- to
Rs. 25,500/- w.e.f. 01.11.2017 for a period
of five years. It is further ordered that
during the period of reduction of the pay,
the
charged
official
will
not
earn
increments of pay and this will have the
effect of future increments of his pay with
cumulative effect" imposed vide SPOs
Ballia
memo
no.
F/Genral/DP/Namo
Narayan Prasad/14-15 dated 31.10.2017 is
not commensurate with the gravity of
offence committed by him. As the petitioner
misappropriated Rs. 3,88,060/- and to
justify his claim presented fake and bogus
vouchers. These are very serious and grave
irregularities and such an official is
undesirable in government service.

4- Therefore, the undersigned proposes to
enhances the penalty upheld by appellate
authority
vide
memo
no.
RPV/Vig/Appeal/5-2/2018
dated
13.04.2018 and imposed by disciplinary
authority
vide
memo
no.
F/Genral/DP/Namo Narayan Prasad/14-15
dated 31.10.2017 "Reduction of his pay
9 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Namo Narain Prasad
585
from Rs. 37,500/- to Rs. 25,500/- w.e.f.
01.11.2017 for a period of five years. It is
further ordered that during the period of
reduction of the pay, the charged official
will not earn increments of pay and this
will have the effect of future increments of
his
pay
with
cumulative
effect"
to
"Dismissal from Service." , if any,

5- Narayan Shri Namo Narayan
Prasad, PA, Ballia is called upon to submit
his representation against the proposed
revised penalty within 10 (Ten) days of
receipt of this memo, failing which it shall
be presumed that he has nothing to say and
revised penalty will be imposed.
(Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha)
Chief Postmaster General,
U.P. Circle, Lucknow-226001
Shri Namo Narayan Prasad,
Postal Assistant,
Ballia.
(Through
PMG
Varanasi
Region,
Varanasi)

ANALYSIS

26. We have given thoughtful
consideration to the arguments advanced by
the rival parties and perused the record.

27. The facts are not in issue. It is not
in dispute that the original applicant while
posted as Sub Postmaster, Sikandarpur, Bus
Stand from 7.8.2012 to 26.6.2014 owing to
certain irregularities was placed under
suspension on 26.6.2014. On 15.9.2014 a
major penalty charge sheet containing two
articles of charges was served upon the
original applicant with the allegation, (a)
the applicant without there being any
approval/order of the competent authority
made expenditures of an amount of
Rs.3,88,060/- and misappropriated the
same; (b) despite being asked to submits
the vouchers, registers and the documents
showing the the expenditure of an amount
of
Rs.3,88,060/-
the
same
was
not
furnished.

28. One Sri P.S.P. Srivastava was
appointed as an Inquiry Officer, who
conducted the inquiry proceedings and
tendered inquiry report on 31.8.2017 before
the Disciplinary Authority, a show cause
notice was issued to the original applicant
and
thereafter
on
31.10.2017,
the
punishment order came to be passed
whereby (a) reversion from the post of
Senior Postmaster to Dak Assistant for a
period of five years in the pay scale of
Rs.37,500/- (b) fixation of the pay at the
minimum of the scale of Dak Assistant of
five years with cumulative effect on future
increment (c) non admissibility of the
increments during the reversion period and
(d) deposit of amount of Rs.3,88,060/- to
be adjusted. Against the same an appeal
came to be filed by the original applicant
which came to be rejected on 13.4.2018
confirming the order of the Disciplinary
Authority and thereafter the original
applicant preferred a revision on 23.5.2018
which came to be rejected on 30.9.2022.

29. The bone of contention between
the rival parties is whether it was
permissible for the revisable authority to
have invoked the provisions contained
under Rule 29 (1)(vi) of the Rules, 1965 or
not for enhancing the punishment.

30. To begin with, we are required to
have a quick survey of the Rule 29 of the
Rules, 1965 which deals with revision.
Rule 29(1) of the Rules, 1965 postulates six
categories of Revisional Authority. So far
as the present controversy is concerned the
same is relatable to the exercise of the
powers by the Revisional Authority under
Rule 29(1)(vi) of the Rules, 1965. Perusal
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the said Rule would go to show that
there is no period provided in Sub-Clauses
(i) to (iv) & (vi), Sub-Clause (v) refers to a
period of six months from the date of the
order proposed to be revised by the
appellate authority.

31. On 29.5.2021 the Ministry of
Communication (Department of Post) in
exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(vi) of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 29 of the
Rules, 1965 issued a notification specifying
the authorities who were to exercise
revisional powers against the order of the
Appellate Authority. In the case in hand,
the matter relates to Postal department of
Ministry of Communication. Interestingly,
in the notification dated 29.5.2001 there is
no time line provided for exercising the
powers of the Revisional Authority under
Clause (vi) of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 29 of
the Rules, 1965. The said notification came
up for consideration before the Hon.
Supreme Court in the case of Vikrambhai
Maganbhai Chaudhary (Supra) wherein
the following was observed"-

10. As rightly observed by the
Tribunal, the above sub-rule (1) of Rule 29
indicates
6
categories
of
revisional
authorities. If we go further it shows that
while no period is mentioned in sub-clauses
(i) to (iv), sub-clause (v) refers to a period
of six months from the date of the order
proposed to be revised. Since the order was
passed by exercising power under subclause (vi), we have to see whether in the
notification specifying an authority a timelimit has been mentioned or even in the
absence of the same, the outer limit can be
availed by exercising power under subclause (v). According to the learned ASG,
there is no need to specify the period in the
notification
authorising
the
authority
concerned to call for the record for any
enquiry and revise any order made under
the Rules. We are unable to accept the said
claim for the following reasons.

11.