THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.24637 of 2011 16.09.2011 Between: The Union of India And others. …. Petitioners AND Pattan Abdul Azad Khan and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.24637 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The writ petition filed by the Union of India and others (hereafter, respondents) is against the order dated 02.09.2010 in Original Application No.947 of 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. By the said order, the learned Tribunal allowed the said application filed by the first respondent (hereafter, the applicant) and declared that the memo/order dated 24.08.2009 of the Inspector of Posts, Giddalur Division (fifth respondent) has ceased to operate with effect from the date of expiry of fifteen days from the date of the said order. The applicant is ED packer in Racherla Post Office. He was not allowed to function from 15.08.1996. Aggrieved by which, he filed O.A.No.1021 of 1996. The same was allowed on 08.09.1998. Thereafter, he was taken into service on 16.12.1998. In the second week of August, 2009, the Sub Post Master, Racherla advised Treasurer of Giddalur to remit cash of Rs.20,000/- in the registered list. As per the advice, the latter enclosed remittance of Rs.20,000/- in the leather cash bag and entrusted to Grameen Dak Sevak (GDS) for exchanging it at the bus stand. The same was exchanged with Mail Motor Service No.AP 102 7763 and at Racherla and the applicant received the transit bag but cash bag was not received. It is also alleged that he did not bring to the notice of the Sub Post Master about non-receipt of cash bag, and that he took away the registered list kept on the table of SPM, Racherla. The applicant was, therefore, put off on duty with effect from 25.08.2009 by memo/order dated 24.08.2009. He was also ordered to be paid ex gratia payment equal to 25% of his TRCA together with admissible dearness allowance. The said order was assailed before the Tribunal as the one without jurisdiction. The Tribunal relied on Rule 12 of the Grameen Dak Sevek (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 (the Rules) which inter alia provided that the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any authority empowered in that behalf by the Government may put a Sevak off duty where disciplinary proceeding is contemplated or pending. In cases of fraud or embezzlement, the Inspector of Post Offices or the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices of the Sub Division may also put a Sevak off duty. In such an event, the order shall cease to be effective on the expiry of fifteen days from the date of such order unless the same is confirmed by the appointing authority or the authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate. After considering the rival contentions and the relevant Rules, the learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the respondents did not place any material to show that the order of put off duty by the fifth respondent was confirmed subsequently. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the said order would cease to be effective after expiry of fifteen days and allowed the Original Application accordingly. The Assistant Solicitor General for Government of India for the petitioners/respondents submits that the Inspector of Post Offices is appointing authority for ED packers and therefore, no confirmation is required. We are afraid we cannot accept the submission. He has relied on Rule 12 of the Rules which does not in any manner support the contention. We do not, therefore, find any grave error apparent on the face of record warranting interference with the order of the learned Tribunal. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) 16.09.2011 Pln