Tuesday, July 24, 2012


ANOTHER REMEMRABLEJUDGEMENT GUARDING RECOVERY IMPOSED UNDER CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TTRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH , JODHPUR
                                                              OA No. 156/2011
Order reserved on  01.03.2012
Order pronounced on : 22.05.2012
HON’BLE  MR. SUDHIR KUMAR, MEMBER (A)   

 ___________72, Balaji Nagar
Near Bijhli Ghar, Salawas Road,
Jodhpur                                                                             …………Applicant

Versus
Union  of India through
The Secretary Government of India,
Ministry of Communication,
Department of Posts
Dak Tar Bhawan, New Delhi

Post Master general
Western Region, Jodhpur 362007

The Superintendent of Post Offices
Jodhpur Division, jodhpur                                           ……..Respondents

BY Advocate Shri Ankur Mathur for Shri Vinit Mathur
O R D E R
1.   The applicant of this OA was appointed as a Postal Assistant of the year 1972 and superannuated from his serviced30.6.2010. While he was working as Assistant Post Master under Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jodhpur, after unblemished service of 38 years. During the period of his service, he was for some time posted at the treasury Accounts section in Jodhpur Head Post Office. The applicant has pointed out that the respondents have through the impugned order dated 31.03.2011, Annexure A-1 passed the order for recovery of Rs 60,000/- from the retirement benefits, as earlier ordered   by the Senior Superintendent Posts Office Jodhpur through his order dated 21.01.2010  Annexure A-2. And they have failed to consider his representation dated 14.06.2010 in response to the notice served upon him for imposition of major penalty under Rule 16 of CCS (CCS) Rules. Annexure-A3dated 10-6-2010. Neither has his stated representation dated 05.08-2010 against the orders dated 21.06.2010 (Annexure A-2) been considered in detail while passing the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, Director Postal Services, Jodhpur, through Annexure-A-1.
2.   The applicant has pointed out that is name has unnecessarily being included as a subsidiary of offender in respect of the offense of misappropriation detected by the department at Phalodi Sub-Post Office, far away from his place of posting, when it has still not been revealed as to how the applicant here in is liable for the alleged offences committed by the two name person posted at Phalodi, when neither his name had been mentioned in the compliant/ FIR, nor any show cause notice has been issued to him with respect to any inquire proposed to be started against him. The applicant has alleged that the respondents did not even make out  a proper charge sheet against him and respondents have imposed to recover the amount at the time of his retirement by branding him to be a subsidiary offender in passing of certain voucher, through Annexure A-3 dated 10.06.2010, just 20 days prior to the date of his superannuation, without initiating a disciplinary enquiry and fixing responsibilities upon him for that offence which had nothing to with the applicant, and had occurred years back, and the action of the respondents in recovering the amount to Rs 60,000/- from him is nothing but a glaring example of arbitrariness, hostile and discriminatory action, as well as colorable exercise of power.
 3.  The applicant has pointed out that the principal offenders had committed this offence form the year 2005 to 2008, which was detected in the year 2009, and the applicant could not have been held to be in anyway responsible for even having facilitated the misappropriation, since he joined at Jodhpur Head Office only on 08.05.2008. His contention is that even though not even a single penny has been recovered from the Principal offenders of the Phalodi Fraud case, knowing fully well that they would have to issue a ‘No Objection Certificate’ at the time of his retirement on 30.06.2010, they compelled the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs 60,000/- in case for obtaining the NOC at the time of his retirement, in spite of knowing that no such recovery can be made, except by virtue of an order passed under Rule 11 sub Rule (iii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant has further given the details as to how he could not have had a hand in assisting the Principal offenders, and in making any mistakes in the ledger and balance etc, since all accounts has now been computerized . The applicant alleged that the respondent have not revealed as to how he has been held liable for an offence allegedly committed by tow delinquents posted at Phalodi Sub Post Office, and as to how he is linked with the alleged offence, and what contributory role he played, and as to what was the reason why disciplinary proceeding were not been initiated or even show cause notice was not issued to him by just 20 days prior to his superannuation. It was further submitted that on the one hand respondents has passed the punishment order of recovery of Rs 60,000/- from the applicant, while in the same matter other delinquents are still facing criminal proceedings filed by the CBI as well as departmental proceedings. He further submitted that there is no statutory provision to authorize the respondents to assess any loss caused by the Government servant without conducting a proper disciplinary enquiry, beause it is not open to the respondents to be judge in their own case, and to determine the recovery on a Government servant without instituting relevant departmental enquiry proceedings.
4.   It was submitted by the applicant that the impugned orders has been passed by the respondents without application o mind and without the appreciation of the correct and factual aspects of the matter, and even though the fraud was detected in the year 2009, the respondents have, even as yet, not determined as to how he was involved in this matter, and have not issued to him any charge sheet, or commenced any enquiry, or eve issued a Show Cause Notice to him. It was submitted that when neither any disciplinary proceedings are pending, nor initiated, the respondents were wrong in having denied to him all the service benefits in a whimsical manner and in colorable exercise of power, with hostile and discriminatory action, in a glaring example of arbitrariness. The applicant submitted that the responded have violated the principal of natural justice in not having considered the facts and circumstances of the evidence placed by him on records.
5.   In the result , the applicant had prayed for the impugned Annexure A-1dated 31-03-2011 passed by the Appellate Authority and Annexure A-2 dated 21-06-2010 passed by the Disciplinary Authority to be declared as illegal, unjust, improper, and to be quashed and set aside , and for directions upon the respondents to refund the recovered amount of Rs 60000/- with interest , and any other directions in the interest of justice, apart from costs,
6.   In their reply written statement filed on 03.01.2012, the respondents  submitted under Rule 16 that the Applicant was rightly  served with a charge denied the submissions of the applicant. They took a stand that while working as the Assistant Post Master, Jodhpur Head Post Office during the period from 12.05.2008  to 31.08.2010, the applicant did not perform the prescribed checks on various SB Accounts standing at Phalodi sub Post Office and because of his negligence, fraud to the tune of Rs 2 crores could be committed by the Principal Offenders. It was submitted that the applicant was rightly served with a charge sheet under Rule 16 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, on 10.6.2010, and the  penalty of recovery of Rs 60000/- awarded vide Memo dated 21.06.2010 was justified . It was submitted that on detection of the fraud at Phalodi Sub Post Office,  on04.06.2009 during the surprise visit, apart from taking action against Principal Offenders then posted at Phalodi Sub Post office , since each and every transaction at Phalodi Sub Post Office was checked and verified at Jodhpur Head Post Office, the Subsidiary offenders at Jodhpur HO had been identified, o n the basis of responsibilities which they had failed to perform, and that the applicant alone was not awarded the penalty of recovery, and that there are many other subsidiary offender also identified in that fraud case who have been penalized with the penalty of recovery in proportion to negligence. It was submitted that since more than  Rs 1.3 crore has yet to be recovered out of the total misappropriation in the fraud case, which could take place only because while working as a Supervisor the applicant failed to perform his duties to check the details of any payments more than Rs 20000/-, which were made in cash by the Subordinate Office. The  respondents had stated that the applicant cannot escape his responsibility only because the CBI criminal case had been filed only against the two Principal Offenders, who had committed the fraud, since the responsibility of subsidiary offenders has also been determined and fixed by the department, and more than 60 other subsidiary offenders had been identified, depending upon their level of negligence, which had allowed the fraud to take place.
7.   The  applicant filed a rejoinder more or less reiterating his submissions in the OA. He  submitted that the recovery o60000/- had been made from him in violation of Section 4 of the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850,   provides that the person  or persons at  the Head of the office to which any public accountant belongs may proceed against any such public accountants and his securities, for any loss or defalcation in his accounts as if the amount thereof were an arrear of land revenue due to Government . However , he submitted that for this purpose, it was necessary for the competent authority to first arrive at  clear findings under Rule 204 of the P&T Manual Vol-III, that the Government employee held responsible for a particular act or negligence or breach of orders or rules, which had caused the loss. He has submitted that the respondents did not prove his fault and have punished him on suspicion, and on the basis of presumption, and the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs Commissioner of Police & Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 10 that suspicion or presumption cannot take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. He had further given the detail about his responsibilities as an assistant Postmaster, and had submitted that it was the responsibility of the Ledger Assistant to have checked up the bundles of vouchers received from Phalodi Post Office and to have maintained the objection register, as is apparent from Rules 4f8 to 92 of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Vol I (Annexure A-7 to A-8).
8.   It was further submitted by the applicant in his rejoinder that Rules 106 and 107 of the Post Office Saving Bank Manual Vol-I are very clear in stating that in the case of proceedings initiating of recovery of pecuniary losses caused to the Government by negligence, or breach of orders by a Government servant, the penalty of recovery can be imposed only when it is established that the government servant was responsible for particular act or fact of negligence, or breach of orders or rules, and that such negligence of breach caused the loss. The Rule 107 further states that in case of a loss caused to the Government , the competent disciplinary authority has to correctly assess in a realistic manner, the contributory negligence o n the part of an officer, and while determining any omission or lapses on the part of an officer, the bearing of such lapses on the loss suffered by the department have reconsidered and that the extenuating circumstances in which the duties were performed by the officer shall have to be given due weight. It was stated that an order of recovery of loss suffered by the department under Rule 204 and sub Rule-4 cannot stand on a standalone basis, without fulfilling the pre-conditions of Rules 106 and 107 of the same rules.
9.   It was further submitted that punishment of recovery of an amount is a special type of punishment, and it can be awarded only when there is a proven loss to the Government, and the nexus of the delinquent official to that loss had been proved. It was submitted that in this case neither the nexus has been proved nor any loss has been caused on account of any actions of the applicant, and therefore, the punishment of recovery has been awarded based on an erroneous decision arrived at on the question of law and material irregularity, which had resulted in a punishment listed through the impugned orders Annexure A-1 & A-2. It was submitted that in the Phalodi fraud case, neither the investigation is complete, or has any recovery been made from the alleged Principal offenders, but still levying a penalty of recovery of Rs 60000/- from the applicant is violative of the principles of natural justice, in the absence of any proof of the allegation that any loss has been caused to Government by any lapse or omission on the part of the applicant. It was, therefore, proved that neither the findings arrived at in the impugned orders are established on material aspects, nor mandatory provisions have been complied with, and therefore, the order of punishment deserves to be quashed and the OA deserves to be allowed.
10. Heard.  The case was argued vehemently by both the sides.
11. In the instant case, the show cause notice and charge memo under Rule-10 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued through Annexure A-3 dated 10-6-2010, which does not require a detailed departmental enquiry to be held. The applicant did submit his reply dated 14-06-2010, but the respondents proceeded ahead to pass the impugned order at Annexure A-2 dated 21-06-2010, which is a reasoned and speaking order up to the penultimate paragraph, holding the applicant to be one of the subsidiary offenders. However, nowhere hat order it has been sated or determined as  to he amount of Rs 60000/- had been arrived at being ordered to be recovered from the applicant. Since the applicant was to be retire within 9 days, on 30-06-2010, under duress, he has had to pay the amount in order to obtain the NOC drawing his retiry benefits. He submitted  detailed defence to the appellate authority on 05.08.2010 as discussed through the impugned order Annexure A-1,  the appellate Authority has upheld the imposition of minor penalty upon the applicant, and further upheld the recovery of Rs 60000/- ordered from the applicant under Rule-27 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965.
12. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the department has been acting in the partial manner in regard to that of subsidiary offenders identified in Phalodi fraud case. In some of their cases, in respect of those who are in service, even MACP and other financial benefits are being granted in the routine, but from all those from that list of subsidiary offenders identified by the department who have been retiring, arbitrarily fixed amounts have been ordered to be recovered, and recovery of such arbitrarily fixed amounts has been effected before the retirement in each such case.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the amount for recovery have been fixed according to the level/ duties which the concerned official had failed to discharge and that the determination of the amount for recovery from both the principal and subsidiary offenders identified had been made depending upon the level of failure of performance of their responsibility.
14. I am not quite convinced with the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, especially so because no amount has so far been determined for being recovered from the principal offenders of the Phalodi Fraud case, who are still facing the departmental enquiry, as well as the criminal case in the Special CBI court.
15. The impugned order at Annexure A-1 and A-2 also are partially defective in as much as while they have gone ahead to order for recovery of Rs 60,000/- from the applicant, apparently under sub-Rule 4 of Rule 204 of the Post Office Saving Bank Manual Vol-1, the order themselves nowhere state about the quantum of or the amount of such recovery to have been determined in a  proper manner, because that would have required adherence to the principles of Rules 106 and 107 also as cited above, which would essentially require the quantum of contributory negligence on the part of the delinquent Government official to be equally determined, which has not been done in this case. When the total quantum of loss suffered by the Department in the Phalodi fraud case, itself has yet to have been correctly assessed and totaled up, the respondent department can not be allowed to state that the quantum of responsibilities for the loss suffered apportioned upon the applicant before this tribunal had been arrived at in realistic manner. Also , the show cause notice issued to the applicant herein through Annexure A-3 dated 10.06.2010 was only with reference to Rule-16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965,  and in the charge memo enclosed , while mention had been made of Rule-38(3) of the P&T manual, and CCS (conduct) rule 1964 of Rule – 3 (i) (ii), no mention had been made of any charge under Rule 204 of the Postal Manual, under which only such recovery could have been ordered to be made from the applicant.
16. It has also to be seen as to whether recovery from the applicant could have been ordered by the respondents under the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 itself. This brings me to the fallacy of there being only ten kind of penalties under Rule 11 of   CCS (CCA) Rules, as it commonly believed. A close perusal of Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules reveals as follows :-
      The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereunder provided, be imposed on the Government servant, namely:-
Minor Penalties
(i)                 Censure;
(ii)               Withholding of his promotion;
(iii)       Recovery form his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders.
(iii)(a)  Reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a period of not exceeding 3 years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension.
(iv)              Withholding of increment of pay
Major Penalties
(v)                Save as provided for in Clause (iii) (a), reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the Government servant will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay;
(vi)              Reduction to lower time-scale of pay, grade, post of service which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the Government servant to the time-scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with or without further directions regarding condition of restoration to the grade or post of Service from which the Government servant was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration, to that grade, post of Services;
(vii)            Compulsory retirement;
(viii)          Removal from services which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government;
(ix)              Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government;
Provided that in every case in which the charge of possession of assets disproportionate to known source of income of the charge of acceptance from any person of gratification, other that legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act is established, the penalty mentioned in Clause (viii) and Clause (Xi) shall be imposed;
      Provided further that in any exceptional case and fro special reasons recorded in writing, any other penalty may be imposed.
Explanation……………………………………………………………
Thus, it is seen that from the five categories of minor penalties enumerated in Sub-Rules 11 (i), 11(ii), 11 (iii), 11(iii)(a) and 11 (iv), and the five categories of major penalties enumerated in Sub-Rules 11 (v), 11 (vi), 11 (vii), 11 (viii) and 11 (ix), there is an 11th category of penalty also, described within Rule 11, which is included in the second proviso o the Rule 11 cited above, whereby, in any exceptional circumstances and for special reasons recovered in writing, any other penalty may also be imposed. Rule 14 and 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, deal with the procedure for imposition of the major penalties, and for action to be taken on the inquiry report. Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, deals with the procedure for imposition of minor penalties. There is no such parallel specific rule or provision in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, under which, as cited above, in any exceptional circumstance or case and for special reasons recorded in writing, any other penalty may be imposed. Even Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965, providing for special procedure in certain cases deals only with the procedure prescribed under Rule-14 to Rule 18 of CCS (CCA) rule 1965. Therefore, it is obvious that the second proviso to Rule 11 is a stand alone and independent provision for which no specific procedure has been prescribed
18.             It, therefore, appears appropriate that in case of any action taken against the delinquent Government servant which does not fall under the 5 categories of minor penalties, or the 5 categories of major penalties, but which has to be classified as fan exceptional case, the only requirement is (a) a corollary that under the Constitution of India the delinquent Government servant should have had a reasonable opportunity of being heard regarding the exceptional or compelling circumstances.
19. Therefore, it is held that after having issued to the applicant a charge sheet under -16 of CCS(CCA) Rule 1965, the penalty of recovery could have been ordered by the Respondents was as an exceptional case, for the reasons to be recorded in writing and the delinquent government servant should have had a reasonable  opportunity of being heard regarding the exceptional and compelling circumstances, on the  basis of which such recovery was being ordered, which is not the case in the instant case. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 31-03-2011 (Annexure A-1) and f21-06-2010 (Annexure A-2) are set aside, and the respondents are ordered to refund the amount of Rs 60000/- forcibly recovered from the applicant just prior to his superannuation, without determining the quantum of negligence attributable to him, and the exact amount of quantum of loss attributable to him on account of the negligence of the applicant, with GPF rate of interest from the date of recovery of such amount, till the actual date of refund of such amount.
20. The OA is therefore, allowed, but there shall be no order as to costs.
(Sd/-) (SUDHIR KUMAR) MEMBER (A)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

O.A. No. 382/2011 with
O.A. No. 353/2011 with MA No. 19/2012 &
O.A. No. 354/2011 witn MA No.20/2012
Date of Order 22-05-2012
(Resered on 02-03-2012)
Hon’nle MR. SUDHIR KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
O.A. No. 382/2010
Bhanwar Lal Regar,
S/O Shri Ghasi Ram
R/O Regar Basti, Ward No. 38
Tehsitl- Churu, District Churu
(Office Address:- Working as SPM Bagia School Road
Post Office at Churu in Postal Department)                                             -Applicant

By Advocate Mr. S.P.Singh
Versus
1.   Union nof India, through
The Secretary, Government of India,
Ministry of Communication, Department of Post,
Dak Tar Bhawan, new Delhi

2.   The Chief Post Master General,
Rajasthan Circle, jaipur-302007

3.   The Director o/o Post Master General,
Western Region, Jodhpur

4.   Superintendent of Post Offices
Churu Division, Churu                                           -Respondents

Advocate: Mr. MS Godara for  Mr Vinit Mathur ASG)
OA – 353/2011
Hardewa Ram Dhaka
S/O Late Shri Pura Ram Dhaka
R/o H. No. 13, Gandhi Basti, Ward No. 1,
Sujangarh District- Churu,
(Office Address: Working as SPM at
Bidasar Post Office).                                                         -Applicant

By Advocate; Mr. SP Singh)
Versus
1.   Union nof India, through
The Secretary, Government of India,
Ministry of Communication, Department of Post,
Dak Tar Bhawan, new Delhi

2.   The Chief Post Master General,
Rajasthan Circle, jaipur-302007

3.   The Director o/o Post Master General,
Western Region, Jodhpur

4.   Superintendent of Post Offices
Churu Division, Churu                                           -Respondents

Advocate: Mr. MS Godara for  Mr Vinit Mathur ASG)
O.A. No. 354/2011
Chauthmal Pareek L.
S/O Late Shri Tusli Ram
R/o Vill – PO- Kulasar
Tehsil: Sardarsahar,
Office Address: Working as LSG Sardarshahar
Postal Dept.)                                                                                 -Applicant
By advocate: Mr SP Singh
Versus
1.   Union of India, through
The Secretary, Government of India,
Ministry of Communication, Department of Post,
Dak Tar Bhawan, new Delhi

2.   The Chief Post Master General,
Rajasthan Circle, jaipur-302007

3.   The Director o/o Post Master General,
      Western Region, Jodhpur

4.   Superintendent of Post Offices
Churu Division, Churu                                     -Respondents

Advocate: Mr. MS Godara for Mr Vinit Mathur ASG)
O R D E R
      These three cases of three individual applicants came to be heard together and reserved for orders together, and , therefore, are being disposed of through a common order, since the cases of the applicants and the pleadings are similar in nature for the purposes of discussion of the facts of their cases and arriving at the findings. For the sake of convenience, the facts of the case in OA No. 382/2011 Bhanwar Lal Regar can be discussed first, in detail as the leading case.
2.   The applicant of OA No. 382/2011 was initially appointed as an Extra Departmental Agent (EDA in short) in the Postal Department, which is categorized as a civil post, but not a Government employment. Therefore, he became a Group – D employee of the respondent Postal Department on 15-01-1978, and entered substantive appointment with the government from that date. Very soon, he qualified in the selection and was appointed as a Postman on 19-08-1978.
3.   Therefore, the applicant appeared in the examination for selection for the post of Postal Assistant, which is conducted by the respondent department on a centralized basis, and he was declared selected. He proceeded for training, and after training he was posted as a Postal Assistant/ Clerk w.e.f. 15-01-1990. the respondent / Postal Department was not operating the Assured Career Progression Scheme earlier, but had a parallel Scheme for granting financial up gradation in the nature of the Time Bound Promotion, TBOP in short, on completion of 16 years of continuous service in a post and grade of pay without any promotion and later another Scheme of Biennial Cadre Review (BCR in short ) was introduced by the respondent department for those who had completed 26 years of service without any promotion, or with only one promotion, to be granted the second financial up gradation. Therefore, after the 6th Central Pay Commission when the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme was introduced by the Government, (MACP Scheme, in short) the respondent department adopted the MACP Scheme for employees for grant of financial upgradations in the case of stagnation without promotions for 10/20/30 years.
4.   The applicant Shri Bhanwar Lal Regar was granted his first financial up gradation under TBOP Scheme w.e.f. 05-02-2006, 16 years after the date of his joining as a Postal Assistant. Therefore, the applicant was granted another second financial up gradation under the MACP Scheme through the order dated 31-03-2010 (Annexure A-2) on completion of 20 years of his service as on 15-02-2010 from the date 16-02-2010. however, the applicant is aggrieved that on 05-05-2011, he was issued with a show cause notice stating  that the second MACP financial up gradation benefit had been granted to him erroneously, to which he replied on 26-05-2011, but through order dated 10-08-2011, impugned at Annexure A-1, the benefit of second MACP granted to him was withdrawn by the respondents by stating as follows:-
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS INDIA
O/O The Supdt of Post Offices Churu Dn. Churu-331001
Memo No. B2-91(B), Dated at Churu the 10-08-2011
1.   xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
2.   I have gone through the relevant record, ruling and representation, said Shri Bhanwar Lal Regar Promoted from Group D to Postman cadre on 19-08-78 and got second promotion as Postal Asstt. On 15-01-1990 and thereafter, on completion of 16 years of service, the official was upgraded under TBOP on 5-2-2006, as such the official has already availed three financial upgradation from his entry grade, Hence, the official is not entitled for further financial upgradation in accordance with Directorate New Delhi letter No. 4-7/MACPS/2009/PC dated 18-10-2010.
3.   Therefore, IInd MACP granted to him in pay band Rs 5200-20200 with grade pay Rs 4200 vide this office memo No. B2-91 (B) dated 31-3-2010 was irregular and hereby ordered to be withdrawn”.
5.   The applicant is before us on the ground that the impugned orders have been passed without application of mind, and appreciation of correct factual and legal aspects of the matter. He has submitted that the respondents had correctly considered earlier his entry grade to the department as Postal Assistant, and had granted him financial upgradation under TBOP Scheme on completion 16 years of service as Postal Assistant, and second MACP on completion of 20 years of service as Postal Assistant. He has submitted that the respondents could not have counted his service from entry into service as Group-D for either TBOP or MACP, and suddenly counting his appointment from Group-D to Postman, and selection from Postman cadre to Postal Assistant cadre, as financial upgradation/ promotions wrong on the part of the respondents.
6.   In support of his contention, the applicant had cited the of one Shri Remeshwar Lal mali, who was earlier appointed as EDA, and then later appeared in the examination for selection for the post of Group-D and then later appeared in the examination for selection for the post of Postman, Thereafter, the respondents had first granted him financial upgradation by counting his initial appointment in the post of Postman. But, later, in his case also, the MACP granted to him was withdrawn, and pension was not fixed accordingly, but the employee concerned had approached this Tribunal in OA No. 55/2011. Later when in his case the respondents modified his pension order through order dated 08-06-2011 produced by the applicant herein at Annexure A-9 of the OA, the said OA was sought to be withdrawn, and was dismissed as withdrawn on 06-09-2011. The applicant herein, therefore, sought to be treated on the principle of enquiry and parity though in the case of the said Shri Rameshwar Lal mali, there was no judicial determination of his entitlement. In the result, the applicant had prayed for the impugned order dated 10-08-2011 to be set aside, and for being conferred the grade pay of Rs 4200/- instead of Rs 2800/- as presently granted, with all subsequential benefits and had prayed for any other directions under the facts and circumstances of the case, apart from cost.
7.   The respondents had in their reply written statement tiled on 22-12-2011 stoutly defended their actions, and had submitted that his selection from Group D to Postman was his first promotion, and when the applicant further qualified his LGOs examination, he had got his second promotion as Postal Assistant and therefore, TBOP benefits could have been granted to him only on completion of 16 years of Government service, in the Postal Assistants cadre. But since he had already availed three promotions / upgradations from the grade of his entry into service, he was not entitled for the same, and the applicant was erroneously granted second MACP benefit in the Pay Band of Rs 5200-20200 + Grade Pay of Rs 4200/- w.e.f. 16-20-2010 through Anexure A-2, when was held to be irregular as per DG New Delhi, letter dated 21-09-2010and as per the directions of CPMG, Rajasthan Circle dated 20-10-2010 conveyed by the PMG Rajasthan (W) Region, Jodhpur through his letter dated 25-10-2010. it was submitted that since a show cause notice was issued to the applicant, and his reply was considered there is nothing wrong in the order at Annexure A-23 dated 31-03-2010 wrongly passed earlier having been withdrawn. It was further submitted that since he has already availed three promotions/;financial upgradations, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for further financial upgradations. It was further submitted that TBOP / BCR Scheme is a separate Scheme for the purpose of granting financial upgrdations, which has no relevance with the new MACP Scheme, and since the MACP befit was wrongly granted, only that had been withdrawn, while the TBOP Scheme earlier granted to the applicant has not been withdrawn. It is therefore, prayed that the OA is liable to be dismissed.
8.   The applicant filed a rejoinder dated 30-01-2012, more or less reiterating his contentions as raised in the OA, and stating that any selection and appointment, which clearly states that it is a recruitment, cannot be called a promotion, and, therefore, his selection both to the post of Postman, and later to the post of Postal Assistant, were not promotions, but were rather recruitments. It was reiterated that selection and promotion are two different things and promotion can only be in a line of promotional hierarchy, and not to an ex-cadre post. Like in the case of the applicant being selected as a Postal Assistant. It was submitted that the respondents have themselves clarified through Annexure A-6 dated 25-04-2011 that when an official joined Group-D post and later he was declared successful in Postman examination in which he had appeared after fulfilling the eligibility condition of Gramin Dak Sevak and thereafter he was allowed to join in the Postman cadre under the direct recruitment quota on regular basis and as such the regular service for the purpose TBOPs commences from the date of join in  Postman cadre on direct recruitment basis. This clarification Annexure A-6 was issued by the Govt of India, Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Posts. Pay Commission Cell through letter No. 4-7/MACPs/2009/PCC and had amply clarified that the selection of Group-D to Postman is not a promotion.
9.   He further submitted that similar selection for the post of Postal Assistant by appearing at the relevant examination cannot also be called to be a promotion. Therefore, it was reiterated by him that it cannot be held that he had received three promotions, because appointment to an ex-cadre post cannot be considered as promotion, when it is not that one can claim promotion to that post in the hierarchical line of promotion to that post from the earlier post, and the department does not permit promotion from Group-D to Postman, and from Postman to Postal Assistant, and from Postal assistant to Inspector Posts, by way of promotion itself. It was further reiterated that any selection, recruitment appointment or absorption in an ex-cadre has to be treated as a separate entry into a fresh grade for the purpose or ACP/MACP/financial upgradations, and also for TBOP/BCR financial benefits. It was submitted that the respondents cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time when the have themselves admitted that appointment from Group-D to Postman and from Postman to Postal Assistant, was done through a process of selection. In the result, it was prayed that the OA be allowed and the impugned order Annexure A-1 be quashed. In support of his contention, the applicant had cited the letter dated 18-10-2010 issued by the pay commission cell of the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication & IT, clarifying the doubt regarding eligibility of MACP Scheme benefits as follows:-
S. No.
Point on which clarification sought
Status position
1.
Eligibility of MACPs to a direct recruited  Postal Assistant conferred with TBOP.
It ha been represented that in some Circles the directly recruited Postal Assistants who were accorded financial upgradation under one time bound promotion scheme on completion of 16 years of satisfactory service are not being given the 2nd MACPs on the ground that the officials have not completed 10 years of service TBOP Scale/grade with grade pay of Rs 2800.
Attention is drawn to Para No 28 of Annexure-1 to this office OM dated 18-09-2009. it is stated that a directly recruited Postal Assistant who got one financial upgradation under TBOP Scheme after rendering 16 years of service before 01-09-2008, will become eligible to 2nd MACP on completion of 20 years of continuous service from date of entry in Government service or 10 years in TBOP grade pay or scale or combination of both, whichever is earlier. However, financial upgradation under MACPS cannot be conferred from the date prior to 01-09-2008 and such 2nd  financial upgradation for the above referred category of officials has to be given from 01-09-2008. They will also become eligible for 3rd MACP on completion of 30 years of service or after rendering 10 years service in 2nd MACP, whichever is earlier.
OA. 353/2011
10. The applicant of this OA Hardewa Ram Dhaka was similarly placed as the applicant of the above cited OA No. 382/2011, only the relevant dates being different in his case. He was recruited and appointed as Group-D employee and designated as MTS w.e.f. 5-10-1978, thereafter he qualified in the departmental Postman examination, and was appointed as a Postman on 9-12-1979. Subsequently, he further qualified in LGOs examination, and was appointed as Postal Assistant w.e.f. 29-8-1983, and on completion of 10 years of service in the Postal Assistant cadre, under TBOP Scheme, he had been granted his first financial upgradation on 3-9-1999. In his case also, a similar order dated 10-08-2011 was passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Churu. Respondent No 4 withdrawing the second MACP benefit granted to him in his case earlier through the same OM dated 31-03-2010 Annexure A2), which was produced by the applicant of the earlier also. All other facts and submissions being in parallel, they need to be re-produced here in order to avoid repetition.
11. The respondents had also filed an exactly similarly worded reply written statement, denying any wrong doing and stoutly defending their action and praying for the OA to be dismissed. The rejoinder filed by the applicant also was similar to that filed by the applicant in OA No. 382/2011 and need not be discussed again for the sake of brevity. The applicant had also filed MA No. 19.2012 on 01-02-2012 praying that the DOP&T, and Senior Accounts Office are necessary parties, seeking to implead them as Respondents 5 &6 in the OA, but that MA was not allowed, and the case was heard on merits, straightaway, with the existing array of respondents. Therefore, MA No 19/2012 is rejected.
OA. 354/2011
12. The applicant of this OA Chauthmal pareek has also made exactly the same prayer as the applicants of OAs No. 382/2011 and 353/2011, only the relevant dates being different in his case. He was also recruited and appointed as Group-D employee w.e.f. 13-06-1979, and after qualifying in the departmental Postman examination, he was appointed as a Postman on 12-10-1982. Thereafter he appeared and qualified in LGOs examination and was appointed as Postal Assistant w.e.f. 24-08-1983, and on completion of 16 years of service in the Postal Assistant Cadre, under the TBOP Scheme, he had been granted his first financial upgradation on 27-8-1999. Under the MACP Scheme, through the same order dated 31-3-2010, annexed in the earlier two OAs also, he was also granted the second MACP benefit on completion of 20 years of service in the Postal Assistant cadre. But through an exactly similarly worded order, after giving him a show cause notice, in his case also through order dated 10-08-2011, the second MACP benefit granted to him also had been withdrawn.
13. The respondents had also filed an exactly similarly worded reply written statement, taking exactly the similar grounds, and had prayed for the OA to be dismissed.
14. The applicant had thereafter filed a rejoinder on 01-02-2012, which was also similar worded as in the earlier two OAs, and need not be discussed again for the sake of brevity. The applicant of this OA had also filed MA No. 20/2012 on 01-02-2012, praying that the DOP&T and Senior Accounts Officer are necessary parties, and had sought to implead them as Respondents 5 & 6  in the OA, but that MA was not considered before the case came to be heard for final hearing, and that MA No. 20/2012 is, therefore, rejected.
15. Heard the cases in detail. I Have given my anxious consideration to the facts of the cases.
16. It is obvious that appointment from the civil post of EDA to a regular Government employment as Group-D is a fresh appointment, and that has not been disputed by the respondents either. Thereafter when, as Group-D employees, these three applicants faced a process of selection, and were appointed as Postmen such selection cannot be called a promotion, as it was not done in the course of natural progression through seniority. Any advancement in career which is based on a process of selection especially undertaken for that purpose cannot be called as a promotion. A promotion has to be in higher category in the same cadre, or service, or through a prescribed avenue of promotion, but without an element of a process of selection, through tests or examinations etc.
17. The meaning of the word “promotion” was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the ase of Director General, Rice Research Institute, Cuttack & anr V Khetra Mohan Das, 1994 (5) SLR 728 and it was held as follows:-
A promotion is different from fitment by way of rationalization and initial adjustment, Promotion, as is generally understood, means; the appointment of a person of any category or grade of a service or a class of service to a higher category or Grade of such service or class. In C.C.Padmanabhan v. Director of Public Instructions, 1980 (Supp) SC 668: (AIR 1981 SC 64)) this Court observed that “Promotion” as understood in ordinary parlance and also as a term frequently used in cases involving service laws means that a person already holding a position would have a promotion if he is appointed to another post which satisfies either higher category of the same service or that the new post carries higher grade in the same service or class”.
18. Further, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Fatehchand Soni, (1998) 1 SSC 562, at p.567: 1995 (7) Scale 168: 1995 (9) JT523: 196 SC (L&S) 340: 1996 (1) SLR 1.1., The Hon’ble Apex Court findings can be paraphrased and summarized as follows:-
“In the literal sense the word”promote” means “to advise to  a higher position grade, or honour”, So also “promotion’ or grade”. (See  Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edn. P. 1009) ‘promotion’ thus not only covers advancement to higher position or rank but also implies advancement to a higher grade. In service law also the expression ‘promotion’ has been understood in the wider sense and it has been held that ‘promotion can be either to a higher pay scale or to a higher post”.
19. In a similar manner, while being Postmen, the three applicants in these three OAs faced the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE, in short) and qualified to become Postal Assistants, their joining as Postal Assistants was not in the nature of promotion in their earlier existing service or cadre, but was a career advancement through a process of selection therefore for the purpose of grant of TBOP/BCR financial upgradation earlier and MACP financial upgradatrion now, the dates which are relevant to be taken into account for the purpose of counting the periods of their stagnation is the period spent by the applicants as Postal Assistant. In that sense, the clarification issued by the Pay Commission Cell of the department of Posts, Ministry of Commissions & IT on 25-04-2011 through file No. 4-7/MACPs/2009/-PCC, as cited in para 8 above, is correct. The only problem with that clarification is that it stopped at the point of clarifying that when the GDS first joined in a Group-D post, and was later declared as successful in the Postman examination, the regular service for the purpose of MACP would be deemed to commence from the date of his joining as a Postman in Postman cadre on direct recruit basis. But it is obvious that the ----------------would follow, and when the postman appears at the exams and gets selected  to a new Cadre as a Postal Assistant,, even it is start of a new innings for him, and for the purpose of counting his stagnation, if any, the date of his joining as Postal Assistant alone would be relevant, and his previous career advancements canno0t be called to be promotions within the definition of the work ‘promotion’, as is required for the grant of TBOP/BCR benefit consideration, and for consideration for eligibility for financial upgradation on account of stagnation under the MACP Scheme.
20. It is therefore, clear that Para-2 of the impugned order in all these three OAs at Annexure A-1 dated 10-08-2011, passed by the Supdt, of post Offices, Churu Division, Churu was incorrect, and the eligibility of these three applicants for the grant of TBOP/BCR  benefits earlier , and MACP benefit thereafter, has to be counted only from the date they were substantively appointed as Postal Assistants. Therefore, the impugned Annexure A-1 dated 10-08-2011 in all the three OAs are set aside, and the grant of MACP benefit correctly granted to the three applicants earlier through the order dated 31-03-2010 is upheld. The applicants shall be accordingly entitled to all the arrears, with interest at the GPF rate of interest being payable on the arrears of the financial upgradation benefits admissible to the applicants, correctly granted earlier on 31-03-2010.
21. The three OAs are allowed in terms of the above directions, and the two MAs have already been rejected, in paras 11 and 14 above, but there shall be no order as to costs.22.    Let a copy of this order be placed in OA No. 353/2011 and OA No. 354/2011.
Sd/-(SUDHIR KUMAR) MEMBER (A)

DG Posts No. 44-14/2009-SPB-I dated 12-07-2012
Sub: Amendment of Department of Posts (Postman and Mail Guard) Recruitment Rules, 2010.

I am directed to forward herewith a copy of Department of posts (Postman and Mail Guard) (Recruitment Rules, 2012 notified in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II Section 3 Sub Section (i) dated 28.06.2012.

2.   It is requested that the amendment in the Recruitment Rules may be brought to the notice of all concerned.

Sd/- Raj Kumar, Director (Staff)

Copy of Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II Section 3 Sub Section (i) dated 28.06.2012.
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMTION TECHNOLOGY
(Department of Posts)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 28th June, 2012
G.S.R. 511(E) – In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution, the President hereby makes the following rules to amend the Department of Posts (Postman and Mail Guard) Recruitment rules, 2010, namely:-

        1.             1.             These Rules may be called the Department of Posts (Postman and Mail Guard) Recruitment (Amendments) Rule,2012.

                        2.             They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
        2.             In the Schedule to the Department of Posts (Postman and Mail Guard) Recruitment Rules, 2010, against serial number 1 relating to the post of Postman,-
                        (i)            in column (8) in the entry, after the word “Matriculation”, the words “or Equivalent” shall be omitted
                        (ii)           In column (11), in the entry.--
                                        (A) for clauses (a) and (b), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:-
“(a) 50% on the basis lf Limited Departmental Competitive Examination by promotion from amongst Multi Tasking Staff of the recruiting Division with three years regular service in the grade including service put in, if any, against an erstwhile Group ‘D’ post on regular basis as on the 1st January of the year to which the vacancy(ies) belong failing which, from  amongst Multi Tasking Staff of the neighboring Division / Unit on the basis of the said Examination, failing which by direct recruitment from open market..”

(B) for clauses (c) and (d), of the following  clause shall be substituted, namely:--
      “(b) 50% by direct recruitment on the basis of Competitive Examination Limited to Gramin Dak
Sevaks* of the recruiting Division who have worked for at least five years in that capacity as on the 1st day of January of the year to which the vacancy(ies) belong, failing which from amongst Gramin Dak Sevaks of the neighboring Division/Unit on the basis of the said Examination, failing which by direct recruitment from open market.
*Gramin Dak Sevaks are holders of Civil  posts but they are outside the regular  Civil Service due to which their appointment will be by  direct recruitment.”,
(iii)         In column (12), in the entry,--
(A)  for clause (i), Note 1 and clause (ii), the following clause shall be substituted\, namely:--.
“50% on the basis of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination by promotion from amongst Multi Tasking Staff of the recruiting Division with three years regular service in the grade including service put in, if any, against an erstwhile Group ‘D’ post on regular basis as on the 1st January of the year to which the vacancy(ies) belong failing which, from  amongst Multi Tasking Staff of the neighboring Division / Unit on the basis of the said Examination, failing which by direct recruitment from open market..”
                                              (B)   “Note 2” shall be re-numbered as “Note 1” and in the “Note 1” as so re-numbered, the 
                                                          brackets, words and figures” (Applicable for (i) and (ii) above)” shall be omitted:
                                               (c )   “Note 3” shall be renumbered as “Note 2”.
(F.No. 44-14/2009-SPN-I)
RAJ KUMAR, Director (Staff)
Footnote: The principal rules were published vide number G.S.R. 983(E), dated the 20th December, 2010.

DG Posts No. 37-33/2009-SPB-I dated 11-07-2012
Sub: Amendment of Department of Posts (Multi Tasking Staff) Recruitment Rules, 2010.

I am directed to forward herewith a copy of Department of posts (Multi Tasking Staff) (Amendment) Recruitment Rules, 2012 notified in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II Section 3, Sub Section (i) dated 28.06.2012.

2.   It is requested that the amendment in the Recruitment Rules may be brought to the notice of all concerned.
Sd/- Raj Kumar, Director (Staff)

Copy of Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II Section 3 Sub Section (i) dated 28.06.2012.
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMTION TECHNOLOGY
(Department of Posts)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 28th June, 2012
G.S.R. 511(E) – In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution, the President hereby makes the following rules to amend the Department of Posts Multi Tasking  Staff Recruitment rules, 2010, namely:-

1.     1.             These  may be called the Department of Posts Multi Tasking  Staff  Recruitment (Amendments)
                          Rule,2012.

        2.             They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
       
2.     In the Schedule to the Department of Posts Multi Tasking  Staff Recruitment Rules, 2010:--

        (i)  against serial number 1 relting to post of Multi Tasking Staff, in column 7, in the entry, in “Note 1” after the words “Ladakh Division  of”, the words”Jammu and Kashmir State, Lahaul and SPiti District and Pangi Sub Division of” shall be inserted:

        (ii)  against serial number 2 relating to the post of Multi Tasking Staff:--

              (a)  in column (8), in the entry, after the word “Matriculation”, the words “ or Equivalent” shall be omitted:

                      (b)  in column (ii), in the entry:--

                             (A)  in clause  (i), for figures “50%, the figures “25%” shall be substituted:

                             (B)  after clause (iii), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:--
                                  “(iv) 25% by direct recruitment from open market.
(F. No. 37-33/2009-SPB-I), Raj Kumar, Director (Staff)
DG Posts No. A-234012/5/2011 dated 13-7-2012

Subject: Holding of PA/SA Direct Recruitment for 2011 & 2012 through approved Outsourced Agency

            This is regarding conducting of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for filling up vacancies of Postal Assistants, Sorting Assistants, PA MMS, P
A RLO and PA Foreign Post for the year 2011 & 2012.

2.         The last Examination for PA/SA DR Examination was conducted in November 2010 in old pattern. With a view to streamline the procedure to suit the present day situation, it has been decided by the Competent Authority to switch over to the new system of Objective Type Multiple Choice Questions through approved outsourced agency i.e. M/s CWC Ltd. This was circulated to all the Heads of the Circles vide Directorate’s letter No. A-34012/2/2011-DE dated 13-07-2011..

3.         The procedure, scheme and syllabus for the examination to fill up the posts of Postal Assistant/ Sorting Assistant by Direct Recruitment has since been revised and circulated with the approval of the Competent Authority vide Directorate’s letter No. 60-9/2009-SPN-I dated 08-05-2012.

4.         The department has decided to conduct the direct recruitment examination for Pas/SAs, PA MMS, PA RLO and PF Foreign Post for the years 2011 & 2012 through approved outsourced agencyu on furnkey basis. A draft notification has been prepared notifying the cost of application form, examination fee, procedure to apply, mode of dispatch and last date of receipt of application for, vacancy position, scale of pay, age limit, educational qualification, pattern of examination, selection process, allocation of successful candidates.

The following detailed instruction are issued on the above subject:

i)          Devising of Application form : The department t has devised a standard Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) Application Form in consultation with the outsourced agency. The OMR application form will be in Orange colour containing 27 columns with a declaration. Each OMR application form will have a  specific number.

ii)         DETAILS OF OMR KIT : The Agency will print OMR Application  Forms and supply the kits to designated nodal officers of the Circles. The Kit will be in the outer envelope and contain:

a)         OMR Application Form bearing specific number
(b)        Detailed information Brochure/ Instructions Sheet for guidance of the candidates.
(c )       An envelope containing the address of the agency in which, Applicants have to send OMR Application Form
(d)        Window Enveope for dispatch of Admit Cards to the Applicants (Applicant has to affix Rs 5 postage stamp on above window envelope).

iii)        COST OF APPLIDATION FORM: The cost of Application form is Rs 50/-.

5.         The Examination for eligible Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) to fill up the unfilled vacancies of LGO Examination will also be held as per extant rules/guidelines of the department on the same day and ti9me decided for Direct Recruitment as per the same syllabus etc. Accordingly, a format of application for GDS devised in consultation with approved Outsourced Agency and the agency will supply required umber of copies to circle for obtaining the applications from eligible Gramin Dak Sevaks for their submission to M/s CMC Ltd. Through concerned Nodal Officer with an Inventory indicting the name, designation, category, Centre Code etc. The eligibility of GDS Applicant has to be verified by the nodal officer in consultation with Competent Authority of concerned GDS.

6.         Pre-examination activities will be as follows:-

            A notification for Direct Recruitment of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistants is enclosed to be issued y the Chief Postmasters General on a common date i.e., 11-08-2012 in leading local newspapers in English / Hindi. Heads of Circles may appoint DPS (HQs) as Nodal Officer and issue suitable instructions to the Circle Nodal Officers to initiate necessary action to start the process of PASA Direct Recruitment Examination as per notification dated 11-08-2012 issued by Circle for the said examination and maintain close cooperation with M/s CMC Ltd. New Delhi.

            Advertisement for PAs/SAs Direct Recruitment Examination to be issued by each Circle in leading Regional newspapers in English and Hindi.

            Apart from the above, the Roles and responsibilities of the Nodal officer will be as under:-

o       Handling examination activities and responsibilities of Department of posts and maintaining liaison with M/s CMC authorities in the Circle in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment examination to be conducted as per new system of examinations.
o       The Nodal Officer will place the indent to M/s CMC Ltd. Under intimation to the Directorate for Application Form kit (AFKs) for PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination containing Application Form, Instruction Sheet and Envelopes as mentioned above. The Nodal officer will place the indent on M/s CMC Ltd. For the Application Form Kits under intimation to Directorate and CMC will supply the AFKs to the Nodal Officer of the Circle concerned as per indent.
o       A status report of sale of Allocation Forms is required to be submitted after every 7 days as per the enclosed Annexure-I. After 15 days of sale of AFKs, the further requirement of AFKs will be sent to M/s CMC Ltd under intimation to Directorate.
o       Sale of the Application Forms will commence from 11th August 2012 and closes by 25-09-2012. There will not be any sale of OMR AFK after 25-09-2012.
o       Accordingly, the issue of ADG 67/UCR receipt towards payment of examination fee for Rs 200 will also be stopped along with the last date fixed for sale of OMR AFK. In no circumstances, the issue of receipt towards payment of examination fee and sale of OMR AFK will be permitted after 25-09-2012.
o       Indent for the Application Forms is required to be submitted 10 days in advance to M/S CMC Ltd. To enable them to assess the actual requirement. Further Applications Forms will be replenished after assessment of the requirement, if any.
o       An orange colour OMR Answer Sheet for PA/SA  Direct Recruitment Examination will be used during the Examination.
o       On receipt of Application Form kits by the Nodal Officer from M/s CMC, the AFKs will be checked whether the kits are in proper condition and CMC informed of damages, if any. The application Form Kits will be packed in bundles of 100 in damage proof packing inside corrugated boxes.
o       Dispatch of Application Form Kits by the Circle Nodal Officer to the identified Post Offices as per their requirement.

The Applicants will not be submitting any testimonials/certificates along with OMR AFKs. Hence, they are allowed provisionally based on declaration furnished by them. Therefore, at the time of actual appointment of the selected candidates, every care is required to be taken for verification of certificates of Educational qualification, Caste, age concession for SC/ST/OBC/Ex-servicemen, details of examination fee pai9d and character and antecedents. In the event of finding any incorrect or false information, the candidature/selection of the candidate will be cancelled.

8.   It is further stated that the entire process of the examination will continue to be confidential and except the designated Nodal Officer of each Circle, no other officer/official of the Circle should either correspond or contact M/s CMC Ltd. In any manner.

9.   The copy of the notification has to be sent to concerned recognized associations/organizations of SCs/STs.

10. The above contents may be brought to the notice of all concerned.

11. Receipt of this letter may be kindly acknowledged.

Sd/- (VK Tiwary), DDG(R&P)



















1 comment:

Anonymous said...

f minor penalties enumerated in Sub-Rules 11 (i), 11(ii), 11 (iii), 11(iii)(a) and 11 (iv), and the five categories of major penalties enumerated in Sub-Rules 11 (v), 11 (vi), 11 (vii), 11 (viii) and 11 (ix), there is an 11th category of penalty also, described within Rule 11, which is included in the second proviso o the Rule 11 cited above, whereby, in any exceptional circumstances and for special reasons recovered in writing, any other penalty may also be imposed. Rule 14 and 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, deal with the procedure for imposition of the major penalties, and for action to be taken on the inquiry report. Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, deals with the procedure for imposition of minor penalties. There is no such parallel specific rule or provision in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, under which, as cited above, in any exceptional circumstance or case and for special reasons recorded in writing, any other penalty may be imposed. Even Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965, providing for special procedure in certain cases deals only with the procedure prescribed under Rule-14 to Rule 18 of CCS (CCA) rule 1965. Therefore, it is obvious that the second proviso to Rule 11 is a stand alone and independent provision for which no specific procedure has been prescribedirlck