THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WP NO.11881 OF 2001 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Smt Justice T.Meena Kumari ) Challenging the orders dated 22-09-2000 passed in O.A.No.1762 of 1999, the present writ petition is filed. The facts of the case are that while working as a Postman in Lallaguda Post Office, Secunderabad Division, the respondent- applicant was provided with a locker. On 26-06-1992, when the locker was opened, some un-delivered letters were found and to that effect a Panchanama was written. Pursuant to the same, the applicant was issued a Charge Memo dated 16-07-1992 and the Articles of charges are as follows: “ARTICLE-I: That the said Sri P.R.Anjappa, while functioning as Postman, Secunderabad HO irregularly detained 324 unregistered articles and 14 foreign letters received for delivery in his locker in contravention of Rule 131 of Postal Manual Vol.VI Part.III (6th Edition). Thus, the said Sri P.R.Anjappa failed to maintain absolute integrity as required by Rule 3 (1) (i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-II: That the said Sri P.R.Anjappa, while functioning as Postman, Secunderabad HO failed to deliver the articles entrusted to him during the month of March, 1992 and neglected his duty in contravention of Rule 115, 129 and 132 of Postal Manual Vol.VI, Part-III (6th Edition) and thus he failed to maintain devotion to duly as required by Rule 3 (1) (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-III: That the said Sri P.R.Anjappa, while functioning as Postman, SecunderabadHO irregularly detained articles received for delivery in other beats in contravention of Rule 116 of Postal Man.Vol.VI Part.III. Thus the said Sri P.R.Anjappa, acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Govt. Servant violating the provisions of Rule 3 (1) (iii) if CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-IV: That the said Sri P.R.Anjamma while functioning as Postman, Secunderabad HO un-authorisedly allowed an outsider to use his locker provided by the Government for his exclusive use. Thus misused the facility extended to him and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government Servant violating the provisions of Rule 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” The respondent-applicant submitted his explanation to the said charge memo. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer held that Articles-1, II & III are proved and Article-IV is partly proved. Basing on the enquiry report, the applicant was imposed punishment of reduction of his pay from Rs.1000 to Rs.825/- in the pay scale of Rs.825-1200 for a period of five years and that he would not earn increments during the period and reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. Questioning the said order, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Director of Postal Services and the same was rejected confirming the said punishment. Challenging the said order of the appellate authority, the applicant filed an appeal before the Board and the Board modified the punishment to that of three years without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred OA and the Tribunal having heard the matter on merits has observed that the lockers were less compared to the number of postmen working in that post office and that there was no individual postman who was allotted a locker exclusively and without sharing with others and that the locker was being used by other postman of other beats. It was further observed that the applicant has not complained bias against the Enquiry Officer and a reading of the Enquiry report shows that there is a ground for taking such a view. Even though no prejudice appears to have been caused to the applicant by appointment of Enquiry Officer it is brought out from the records there is a possibility of such view being taken. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no material available that the un-delivered letters belonging to some other postman or somebody and the locker belonging to the present respondent-applicant. When the locker was opened , 324 un- registered and 14 foreign letters kept in the locker and the explanation of the applicant that he went on leave cannot be sustained and it amounts to dereliction of duty and as per the enquiry officer’s report, Articles I, II, & III are proved and Article IV partly proved and hence, the imposition of punishment of reduction of pay scale is perfectly valid. We have perused the material available on record. The un-disputed fact remains that when the locker was opened, there were 324 un-registered and 14 foreign letters were available. The explanation of the respondent-applicant that there are some other letters belonging to other postmen, who were not on duty and they are of other beats, cannot be a ground to escape the liability of dereliction on the part of the respondent to over come the charge of dereliction of duty as contained in the articles of charge. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the department cannot be found fault with for imposing the punishment of reduction of pay scale for a period of five years which was modified to that of three years without cumulative effect. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ (JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) _____________________________________ (JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA) rkk Dated: 27-07-2010