Swarup Kumar Mishra ORDER
Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member (J)
1. The applicant challenging the order of punishment dated 09.10.2019 (Annexure A/11) reducing her pay by one stage from Rs. 28,700 to Rs. 27,900 for a period of two months with immediate effect and rejection of her appeal vide order dated 17.03.2020 (Annexure A/14) upholding the punishment has filed this OA praying for following reliefs:
a) To set aside the chargesheet No. K3/IV/07/2019 dated 01.08.2019, order of punishment no. No. K3/INV/07/2019 dated 09.10.2019 and appellate order no. INV/51-24/2019 dated 17.03.2020.
b) And pass appropriate orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with costs.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. It is the stand of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant had done her duty as per provisions of Speed Post Operational Manual issued by the Postal Directorate dated 03.03.2011. He submitted that the applicant being posted at NSH Bhubaneswar, which deals only with speed posts, and the office being computerized there is no provisions of maintaining registers or following Rule 67 and Rule 80 of Postal Manual, which is for normal and other posts not speed posts. He further submitted that the applicant after receiving charge memo had asked for few documents but which were not supplied to her on flimsy grounds thus prejudicing her in the proceeding. Therefore the charge sheet being vague and punishment order as well as order of appellate being violative of principle of natural justice is bad in law, therefore they are liable to be set aside.
4. Respondents, on other hand, submitted that the applicant had been careless while performing her duty and that the applicant should have effected the transfer of bag/article through an error entry in register or hand to hand receipt book, her not doing so resulted in the speed post article going missing and recovered from a bag labeled to Pathankot NSH by Delhi RMS. The respondents submitted that documents which were available and relevant to the case were allowed to the applicant and both the disciplinary as well as appellate authority after going through all records, defence representation of the applicant imposed/upheld the punishment on applicant.
5. The applicant was served charge memo dated 01.08.2019 with following statement of imputations:
Ms. Jyotirmayee Panda, Sorting Assistant, NSH Bhubaneswar under O/o the SRO RMS 'N' Division, Bhubaneswar was arranged for working as Sorting Assistant, NSH Bhubaneswar/1 on 29.07.2019. On that day she had received one loose Speed Post article No. EO433999081IN in her set NSH Bhubaneswar/1 from NSH Bhubaneswar/3 dated 28/29.07.2019 (night set). Ms. Panda after completion of sorting work prepared one SP bag No-EBO11743314 (meant for dispatch to New Delhi NSH) in which the above said article with entry at Sl 18/36 in the speed post manifest dated 29.07.2019 was enclosed. Enquiry made into this case further revealed that Ms. Panda had prepared the said SP bag containing the said article but had not made over the SP bag No. EB00011743314 to HSA, NSH Bhubaneswar/1 on 29.07.2019 for its onward transmission to the destination station as required under the provision of Rule 67 of Postal Manual Volume-VII read with Rule 80 of the said manual. Consequently the disposal of the said article as well as the SP Bag No. EBO0011743314 could not be traced out in the set on the same date or on subsequent dates. Further enquiry into the case revealed that the said SP Bag was transmitted up to Delhi point via N 25 section instead of airlift without any record maintained en route till it was opened at New Delhi NSH on 31.07.2019 i.e. after 02 days.
Thus it is imputed that said Ms. Jyotirmayee Panda by not discharging her duties had not only violated rules of the Postal Manual afore noted but also had failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming on the part of a government servant in violation of Rule 3(1)(ii) & Rule 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Co........