2026:MHC:1332WP No. 5928 of 2023

__________

Page1 of 16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 12.02.2026 Pronounced on : 02.04.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

WP No. 5928 of 2023

S.Srinivasan

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1.Union of India

Rep. by the Director (Mails SP and FP)

Chennai - 600 006.

2.The Appellate Authority

Western Region (for staff)

TN Circle O/o PMG,

Coimbatore 641 002.

3.A. Sundararajan

Formerly Asst. Supdt of Post offices,

Pollachi North Sub Division Pollachi,

(Up to 19.10.2008 and from 03.04.2009 to

14.06.2011) officiating leave vacancy

Superintendent of Post

Offices Tiruppur Division

(20.10.2008 to 01.04.2009)

Tiruppur - 641 601 and now the Supdt. of Post

Offices, Salem West Division.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 5928 of 2023

__________

Page2 of 16

4.The Central Administrative Tribunal

Chennai Bench by its Registrar,

Madras High Court Buildings,

Chennai – 104.

..Respondent(s)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the

nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 4

th

respondent in order dated 20.09.2016 passed in O.A. No. 687 of 2012 and

R.A.No. 4 of 2017 in O.A. No. 687 of 2012 dated 23.09.2019 and to quash the

same and consequently direct the respondents to provide all service benefits for

the purpose of arriving at pension.

For Petitioner(s):Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan

M/s.TVJ Associates

For Respondent(s):Mr.AR L.Sundaresan,

Additional Solicitor General

Assisted by Mr. J.Madanagopal Rao for RR1 to 3

R4-Tribunal

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

The petitioner in O.A.No.687 of 2012 on the file of the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, aggrieved by the order dated 20.09.2016

dismissing the said Original Application and by the order dated 23.09.2019 in

R.A.No.4 of 2017 in the said O.A.No.687 of 2012 is the writ petitioner herein. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 5928 of 2023

__________

Page3 of 16

2.The petitioner was working as Postal Assistant in HPO Dharapuram,

when he discharged five KVPS (Kisan Vikas Patras) and paid R.65,100/- to a

lady claiming to be the mother and guardian of a minor investor R.Lavanya by

obtaining signatures in the said KVP Certificate Nos.67CC 256089 to 256093 in

the presence of R.Chidambaram, the Village Postman, Kambiliyampatti Village,

who identified the lady as the mother and guardian of the said minor Lavanya.

The amount was then paid to her. The original certificates were received from

her and duly invoiced in the daily account dated 17.06.2003 and sent to HPO,

Dharapuram.

3.After about three weeks, the Assistant Postmaster in Dharapuram Head

Post Office made a report that the mother of the minor Lavanya had died and

information had been sought to find out how to encash the certificates.

4.An enquiry was therefore conducted regarding the discharge of the

certificates. During preliminary enquiry, R.Chidambaram gave a statement that

he received only Rs.60,000/- and not Rs.65,100/-. It was claimed that one

Palanisamy had got the amount from Chidambaram as he was the person with

whom the certificates had been pledged.

5.On this issue, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a charge

memo was issued on 28.04.2004. The charge was held proved. The petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 5928 of 2023

__________

Page4 of 16

had given a representation on 09.06.2008 questioning the report of the Enquiry

Officer. Thereafter, a punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the

writ petitioner. The writ petitioner filed an appeal which was forwarded before

the Appellate Authority who rejected the appeal.

6.Questioning the said order passed, the petitioner filed OA.No.687 of

2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal in its order dated

20.09.2016 observed that during the enquiry, the witnesses had been examined

by the writ petitioner himself. He had also produced 13 documents as defence

exhibits. He also summoned 8 witnesses as defence witnesses. He also filed 14

additional documents though they were not taken on record as defence exhibits.

It was therefore held that adequate opportunity had been granted to the writ

petitioner.

7.The contention of the writ petitioner that the order of dismissal from

service was passed by an incompetent authority was rejected. It was noted that

R.Chidambaram the witness in the case had paid back the amount received by

him in the post office account. It was also held that any amount above the sum

of Rs.20,000/- should have been paid by cheque, whereas the writ petitioner had

paid a sum of Rs.65,100/- by cash, again in contradiction with rules. In view of

these reasons, the Tribunal had dismissed the Original Application. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 5928 of 2023

__________

Page5 of 16

8.Subsequently, the writ petitioner filed R.A.No.4 of 2017 seeking review

of the order. The Tribunal, without entering into discussion on facts, examined

the power of the Tribunal to review its own orders and further holding that no

substantial ground had been made to review the order, dismissed the same by

order dated 23.09.2019.

9.The writ petition had been filed challenging both the said orders.

10.Heard arguments advanced by Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan learned counsel

for the petitioner for M/s.TVJ Associates and Mr.AR L. Sundaresan, Additional

Solicitor General for the 1

st

to 3

rd

respondents assisted by Mr.J.Madanagopal

Rao.

11.The learned counsel for the petitioner took the Court through the facts

of the case. He pointed out that when the writ petitioner was working as Postal

Assistant in HPO Dharapuram, he had discharged five KVPs to a lady who

claimed to be the mother and guardian of a minor investor R.Lavanya and after

obtaining her signatures in the certificates, had paid Rs.65,100/- to her. Her

signatures were attested by R.Chidambaram, Village Postman, Kambiliyampatti

Village. The learned counsel pointed out the value of each certificate was less

than Rs.20,000/- and therefore, the petitioner had discharged the amount by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 5928 of 2023

__________

Page6 of 16

cash. He further pointed out that R.Chidambaram had identified the lady who

had sought discharge of the KVPs and had signed as a witness. It was therefore

contended by the learned counsel that no irregularity could be imputed on the

writ petitioner in the discharge of the certificates.

12.With respect to the enquiry proceedings, the learned counsel assailed

the same on the ground that necessary opportunity had not been granted to the

writ petitioner. He pointed out that the order of dismissal was passed by an

incompetent officer. In this connection, the learned counsel placed reliance on

the order of the Principal Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle,

whereby, A. Sundararajan, Assistant Superintendent of Posts was appointed as

Superintendent of Posts, Tiruppur Division, to officiate as Superintendent of

Posts. The learned counsel argued that he was only working as in-charge as

Superintendent of Posts, Tiruppur Division and was therefore not vested with

the authority to pass an order of major penalty of dismissal from service.

13.The learned counsel thus contended that there was no irregularity in

the discharge of the certificates by the writ petitioner and further contended that

the order of dismissal from service had been passed by an officer who was not

competent to pass such an order and had no jurisdiction vested with him to pass

such an order. In view of these reasons, the learned counsel argued that the

order of dismissal from service of the petitioner must be set aside by this Court

and urged that the petitioner should be reinstated in service with monetary and

other attendant benefits. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 5928 of 2023

__________

Page7 of 16

14.The learned Additional Solicitor General disputed the said

contentions. The learned Additional Solicitor General pointed out that though

five KVPs discharged by the petitioner, the total amount discharged was

Rs.65,100/- and a cheque should have been issued for that amount. The learned

Additional Solicitor General stated that they were not five separate transactions

but had been discharged as one transaction to one individual alone and alleged

that the petitioner had violated the rule that any discharge for a sum of

Rs.20,000/- and more should be done only through cheque and not by cash.

15.The learned Additional Solicitor General further argued that the

claimant for the amount due under the certificates herself was a false claimant.

The amount had been discharged to a person who claimed to be the mother and

guardian of a minor investor Lavanya, when the mother had actually died. The

contention of the petitioner that she was identified by the village postman of a

neighbouring post office would only show collusion between the petitioner and

the said village postman. The learned Additional Solicitor General stated that

this was a serious dereliction of duty by the petitioner and contended that since

charges had been proved and there has no complaint about violation of

principles of natural justice during the process of enquiry, the order of

punishment was proportionate to the nature of charge and there could be no

alternate to the said order. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 5928 of 2023

__________

Page8 of 16

16.With respect to the competency of the officer who passed the order of

dismissal, the learned Additional Solicitor General stated that, as a delegate, the

officer was vested with all powers relating to administration including the order

to pass any punishment against any delinquent. The learned Additional Solicitor

General therefore justified the order passed. He sought dismissal of the writ

petition.

17.We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused the

material records.

18.The petitioner, S.Srinivasan was working as Assistant Postmaster at

Dharapuram HPO. He had discharged five KVPs which were in the name of a

minor investor, Lavanya to a stranger lady who claimed to be the guardian of

the minor Lavanya. The total value of the said KVPs was Rs.65,100/-. He

discharged the same to the stranger lady, on the basis of an attestation of

R.Chidambaram, Village Postman, Kambiliyampatti Post Office who identified

her and had signed as a witness. Even if the said lady had been identified and

even if the said village postman had signed as a witness, since the five KVPs

constituted one transaction, since the amount was more than Rs.20,000/-, the

petitioner should have ensured that he had issued a cheque for the amount

discharged. He however paid the amount by cash. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 5928 of 2023

__________

Page9 of 16

19.Later, the Assistant Postmaster at Dharapuram HPO commenced an

enquiry, on the ground that the KVPs had been discharged to a stranger lady.

The village postman, R.Chidambaram was enquired. He stated that he had

received a sum of Rs.60,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.5,100/- was taken

as expenditure. It was contended that the amount discharged was paid to one

Palanisamy with whom the KVPs had been pledged.

20.The above sequence of events show the deep underlying fraud

committed in the Head Post Office, Dharapuram. In the first place, KVPs which

stood in the name of the minor should not have been discharged in the name of

a stranger lady even though she had been identified by R.Chidambaram,

Postman of Kambiliyampatti Village. Even if there was no doubt about her

identity the amount discharged of Rs.65,100/- should have been paid by cheque.

21.The circular directing cheques to be issued for any payment of

Rs.20,000/- or more is as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, INDIA.

To

The SPM

Sub:-Payment of RD, TD, MIS withdrawal and Discharge of

KVP and NSCs by cheque – reg. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 5928 of 2023

__________

Page10 of 16

Sir/Madam,

As per PO SB/SC, manual, the payments of Rs.20000 or

above should be paid by cheque only.

Any violation of this rule will be reported to SPo’s Tirupur.

POSTMASTER,

DHARAPURAM HPO.

22.The writ petitioner had violated this particular rule either out of

ignorance or deliberately. The Village Postman, Kambiliyampatti Village,

R.Chidambaram, who had identified the stranger lady to whom the amount was

discharged had given a statement that though the maturity amount was

Rs.65,100/- he received Rs.60,000/- and Rs.5,100/- had been retained as

expenditure. This allegation could have been avoided had the petitioner issued a

cheque for the amount discharged.

23.We hold that the writ petitioner had failed in his duty to adhere to the

rules and regulations of his work.

24.Later, a complaint emanated that the mother of the minor investor had

actually died in an accident. The petitioner had therefore discharged the amount

to an imposter who was not entitled to receive the same.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 5928 of 2023

__________

Page11 of 16

25.In this connection, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against

the writ petitioner. During the enquiry proceedings, the charge was held to be

proved. It is also seen that during the enquiry proceedings, as noted by the

Tribunal, the petitioner had participated as party-in-person and had also

marshalled witnesses and produced documents and also cross-examined the

witnesses. Thus, there was no violation of principles of natural justice.

26.The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, widened the scope by

arguing that the disciplinary authority who passed the order of dismissal from

service, A.Sundararajan, Superintendent of Post Offices, Tiruppur Division was

was holding in-charge of the post and was therefore not competent to pass such

order.

27.This contention was strongly refuted by the learned Additional

Solicitor General.

28.The order appointing A.Sundararajan as Superintendent of Posts,

Tiruppur Division had been produced and the same is as follows: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 5928 of 2023

__________

Page12 of 16

DEPARTMENT OF POSTS

From

Principal Chief PMG

Tamilnadu Circle Chennai

600002

To

The Postmaster General

Western Region

Coimbatore 641002

NO STC/1-6/08(A) Pt dated at Chennai 600002 the 07.10.2008

Sub: Arrangements of substitute officer for leave vacancy - c/o Shri V

Ramasamy, SPO's, Tirupur Division – reg

Ref: Your office letter no STB/16203/2008 dated 09.09.08

The Principal Chief Postmaster General, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai

has appointed Shri A Sundararajan, ASP, Pollachi North Sub Division

for officiating arrangement as SPO's, Tirupur Division in the leave

vacancy of Shri V Ramasamy subject to the other usual conditions.

Shri A Sundararajan should join as ASP in Western Region on his

reversion from Group B Cadre.

/Signed/

(S Kandasamy)

Asst Postmaster General (Staff)

For Pr.Chief Postmaster General

T.N Circle, Chennai 600002

Ph 044 28520390 and Fax 23521535

Copy to:

Shri A Sundararajan, ASPO's. Pollachi North Sub Division, Pollachi

642002 for information and necessary action

/Signed/

APMG(Staff) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 5928 of 2023

__________

Page13 of 16

29.It is contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General that this

delegation was made under Fundamental Rule 6 of Appendix-3 in

F.R.No.9(19), which stipulated that the extent of power delegated was full

power. The said Rule is as follows:

Serial

No.

(1)

F.R.

Number

(2)

Nature of Power

(3)

Authority to which the

power is delegated

(4)

Extent to

power

delegated

(5)

3 9(19)

Power to appoint

a Government

servant officiate in

a vacant post.

Any authority which has

power to make a

substantive appointment

to the post.

Full power.

30.It had been further contended by the learned Additional Solicitor

General that as per Rule 12(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, any penalty

including the penalty of dismissal from service could be passed by the

disciplinary authority who was the authority competent to pass such an order. It

was thus contended that the Government servant who officiated in the vacant

post had full powers.

31.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order

of punishment was passed by an officer incompetent to pass such an order is

rejected by us. A.Sundararajan was holding full power while officiating as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 5928 of 2023

__________

Page14 of 16

Superintendent of Posts, Tiruppur Division. There is no contention raised that

the Superintendent of Posts did not have authority or power to impose a

punishment of dismissal from service. The communication under which such

delegation was given has also been extracted above. It very clearly indicates

that A.Sundararajan would officiate as Superintendent of Posts, Tiruppur

Division in the leave vacancy. The word ‘officiate’ would indicate right and

power to discharge all duties in that post. The officer who so delegated the

power was also competent to issue such an order. We therefore hold that the

order dismissing the petitioner from service was issued by an office competent

to issue such an order.

32.In view of these reasons, we hold that the writ petition has to

necessarily fail and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs.

(C.V.K.,J.) (K.B.,J.)

02-04-2026

smv

Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 5928 of 2023

__________

Page15 of 16

To

1.The Director (Mails SP and FP)

Chennai - 600 006.

2.The Appellate Authority

Western Region (for staff)

TN Circle O/o PMG,

Coimbatore 641 002.

3.A. Sundararajan

Formerly Asst. Supdt. of Post offices,

Pollachi North Sub Division Pollachi,

Now the Supdt. of Post Offices,

Salem West Division.

4.The Central Administrative Tribunal

Chennai Bench by its Registrar,

Madras High Court Buildings,

Chennai – 104. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 5928 of 2023

__________

Page16 of 16

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

AND

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

smv

Pre-delivery order made in

WP No. 5928 of 2023

02-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis