Jean Golda Lopez vs Senior Superintendent Of Post Offices, Thrissur Division, Thrissur - 680001 & Ors

V. Rama Mathew, Member A

The applicant is presently working as Postal Assistant at Thrissur Head Post Office, Thrissur from 27.05.2015. She is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.03.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent in a disciplinary proceedings. The charge against her is that she failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 53 (12) of Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume 1 and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty violating Rule 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. As per the provisions of the Rule 53(12)(i) of the POSB Manual Volume I for 2006 Edition the entire duties of comparing the signature, verification of balance noted in the application for transfer etc., are vested with the Sub Postmaster only and the Manual does not permit sub delegation of the work. The respondents have no case that she was on duty as incharge of Sub Postmaster and the Sub Postmaster was on leave or absent on the date of occurrence of the alleged misdemeanour. The allegation in the charge sheet ought not to have been against the applicant but against the Sub Postmaster.

In simple terms while the applicant was posted as Postal Assistant at Pullazhi Sub Office from 05.02.2011 to 26.05.2015, she opened 22 Recurrent Deposit (RD) in her name to achieve the target given by the authority to her. It is submitted that she applied for maternity leave for the period from 24.10.2011 to 20.04.2012 and before going on leave as per her request to the Sub Postmaster, the RD accounts were transferred from Pullazhi to Kalpetta Head Office as she is a native of Kalpetta. Thereafter on completion of the maternity leave the said accounts were transferred back to Pullazhi Post Office. It is further submitted that subsequently at her request these accounts were closed prematurely on 19.11.2013 and 06.11.2013 at Pullazhi Sub Office. She was thereafter transferred to Thrissur Head Office on 27.05.2015. While working as such, on 13.07.2016 she came to notice that the aforesaid RD accounts were still shown as live. She contacted Smt.Neethu Mohanan, Postal Assistant at Pullazhi on 14/07/2016 to enquire about the status of her RD accounts. She was wrongly informed that all the accounts were still live and needed closure. Despite the applicant clearly stating that the accounts were already closed and that she did not have the passbooks, the Smt.Neethu Mohanan, Postal Assistant closed the accounts without any instruction or consent from her. Later, on contacting the System Administrator at Thrissur HO on 14.07.2016 she came to know that the accounts (Nos. 118392 and 118393) had already been closed in 2013 and the information given earlier was incorrect. She then immediately reported the matter to Smt.A.B.Hymavathy, SPM of Pullazhy and requested not to take further steps. It is submitted that she has not given any written or oral communications to close the accounts nor did she forward a SB 7A application for the closure of RD accounts and that she has not received any money as alleged against her in Charge Memo.

In the meantime, the applicant received a memo on 13.12.2016 from the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Thrissur Division, alleging failure to follow Rule 53(12) of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual and violation of Rule 3(1)(ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. However, the cited Rule 53(12) was no longer in existence, making the charge legally unsustainable. She replied to the memo on 06.01.2017. Subsequently, departmental proceedings were initiated on 17.02.2017, resulting in a penalty of withholding one increment for three months from 01.07.2017 against which she filed an appeal on 31.03.2017 before the Director of Postal Services (HQ), Central Region, Kochi. But the Appellate Authority enhanced the punishment to withhold the increment upto three years vide order dated 29.11.2018. She submitted a representation before the 2nd respondent against the said order of the Appellate Authority on 15.01.2019 resulting in reduction of punishment of withholding the increment for a period of one year.

The procedure in Sub Offices referred to in the Charge Memo is as under -

“ If the account stands at a Departmental Sub Office and the pass book along with the application for transfer is presented at Sub Office, it should be seen that the restrictions regarding transfer laid down in Rule 51 are not applicable in the case and that the depositor has indicted on the transfer application form his full revised address. If there is any difference between the balance entered in the pass bok and the ledger due to non entry of some transactions in the pass book, the entries in the pass book should be completed and the correct balance noted in the pass book and the balance noted in the application for transfer corrected accordingly under the initials of the Sub Postmaster. The Sub Postmaster should compare the signature in the transfer application with the specimen signature on record and verify the balance noted/corrected in the application for transfer with the shown in the pass book and ledger. The last balance as found in the pass book will be shown as a withdrawal and nil balance struck in the pass book and ledger. He should make an entry in the pass book and the ledger over his dated signature as follows in the red ink :

“Account transferred to ______ Sub Office under ______ Head Office. Application for transfer sent to the Head Office on ______”

A similar note about the transfer of the account should be made in the specimen signature book. The application for transfer should be date stamped, the words “balance verified” noted on it and signed by the Sub Postmaster. The pass book should be returned to the depositor, instructing him to present it at the transferee office after a suitable interval of time. The application for transfer will be forwarded to the Head Office entered in the list of documents.”

The statement based on which these proceedings are predicated is produced as Annexure R-1. On going into the merits, it is obvious from the actions which have not been challenged by the respondents that there is no malafides in her action. In fact, the statement based on which the proceedings have been initiated against her established the bonafide of the applicant. The main contention of the respondents in this case is that the applicant was herself Postal Assistant incharge of Sub Postmaster at the time of transfer and closure of the RDs and it was, therefore, her responsibility to ensure entries regarding the transfer. Unfortunately, as per the rules cited by the respondents themselves the power to certify and verify in ledgers in the pass books are vested with the Sub Postmaster and not with Postal Assistant. It is not the case of the respondents that she has given written directions for closure of accounts and for withdrawal of the money. It is fairly unusual that in financial transaction of this nature action is taken without proper documentation. To hold the applicant responsible for the action of others and in acting without proper authorization does not appear to be appropriate. It is not within the ambit of this Tribunal to go into the quantum of penalty or into the factual matrix in a disciplinary proceedings. However, in this case it is apparent on the face of the record that there is a patent illegality which has occurred and that falls within the ambit of this Tribunal.

It is submitted by the respondents that the applicant had not exhausted the departmental remedies though it is seen that an appeal has been filed against the decision of the Appellate Authority and the penalty had been revised. However, we do not see any Revision Application filed by the applicant produced on record. Therefore, we direct the applicant to file a Revision Application before the Revisionary Authority which will be disposed of in the light of the observations above as also on the basis of the action taken. The Revisionary Authority shall disposed of the same within a period of three months from the date of filing of the Revision Application.

The O.A is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

(Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2026)