~ ~ ~ _ Depart ment of Posts : India . .

, t Offi 8 , Srikak ulam Div1s10 n

fl ff'!UffTJ OVo SuK ·ed ntende nt of I os ce
~ cf>lg,M'-t ,...,'"V .R--_........
~ ct,igHi'
- V St"l kakulat tt - 5"2
"
001

-4/) 021-22 dated at S r

lkakula. m the 27.10.2 023.
~ \O , N 0, H __

Re.id the foilmv i~ . . /\ f-1 ,··1 and Inspector Posts, Rajam, sub
divisio n Memo No.
I. Adh<-,.: D1soph na1 _v u ,o i y . d t Sri G Venugo pala Rao, GDS
lNV / GVR/ Saravakota/202,1 dated 29.03.2023 ISs~e.. o .
MD(Off ~iuty), Saravakota SO under Srikakularn D1v1s10n .

kota SO
.., Appeal dated 27.06.2023 of Sri G. Venugopala Rao, GOS MD( Removed), Sarava
under Srikakulam Division.

3. Other Connected records _/ documents of the case.

$$$
Divisio n
Sri G. Venugopala Rao, GDS MD (Removed), Saravakota SO under Srikak ulam
GDS (Condu ct &
(herein after referred to as the "Appellant") was proceeded under Rule 10 of
n Memo No.
Engagement) Rules 2020 vide Inspector Posts, Srikakulam East sub divisio
statem ent of
Inv / Dak Sevak/2022-23 dated 13.10.2022. The Appellant submit ted his written
Srikak ulam
defence dated 19.10.2022 admitting all the charges levied against him. The SPOs
n and Sri Y.
Division has nominated Sri P. Vikram, ASPOs Amadalavalasa sub divisio
Presen ting Officer
Indrasena, Inspector Posts, Sompeta sub division as the Inquiry Officer and
the Discip linary
respectively vide Memo No. F4-4/2021-22 dated 26.10.2022. Accordingly,
n and Sri Y.
Authority has appointed Sri P. Vikram, ASPOs Amada lavalas a sub divisio
Presen ting Officer
lndrasena, Inspector Posts, Sompe ta sub division as the Inquiry Officer and
022. The Inquiry
respectively vide Memo No. PF/Oak Sevak/Saravakota S0/202 1 dated 28.10.2
report dated
Officer has completed the Rule 10 inquiry on 18.11.2022 and submit ted his Inquiry
was sent to the
19.01.2023 to the Disciplinary Authority. The IO report dated 19.01.2023
on IO report on
Appellant on 13.01.2023 and the Appellant submit ted his represe ntation
sub divisio n
30.01.2023 to the Disciplinary Authority. Sri T. Ravi Kumar, Inspector Posts, Rajam
GDS MD (Off
was appointed as Adhoc Disciplinary Authority against Sri G. Venugo pala Rao,
Author ity &
duty), Saravakota SO vide Memo dated 29.12.2022. The Adhoc Discipl inary
officer and the
Inspe~~ r Posts, Rajam Sub Division after taking the report of the Inquiry
ment of "Remo val
subrrusswns of the Appella nt into conside ration has awarde d the punish
No. Inv /GVR/
from Engagem ent with immediate effect" to the Appell ant vide Memo
Saravakota/2023 dated 29.03.2023 Hence, this appeal.

Page 1 of S
 .
2. n,e Articles of charges framed agam st tI,e "ppe
" 11 t · l1 ri ef ,,re as fo llows:
an 111 '

· · ·
(i) Artide -I : 11,at the Applicant wlule workmg as Gl)S MD ' Sara vako. la SO _Jurin g the
. Two
riod from 22.12.2017 to 20.07.2021 has accep ted an
pe. amoun t of Rs.2000/ (Rs.
thousand 01\ly) on 21.04.2021 from Sn. R. Appruma, F/ G of R Niharika toward s SSY
·
deposit in $ Y A/c No. 4787472876 and noted the
balance in t~e SSY pass book as 0 ~
21.04.2021 as Rs.31,000/- without handing over the
deposit amou nt to th e 5~
Postmaster, Saravakota SO and misused the deposit amou 5
nt of Rs.2,000/ - for
personal purpose.

(ii) Article -Il : That the Applicant while working as GDS

MD, Saravakota SO durin g the
period from 22.12 .2017 to 20.07.2021 has accepted
an amount of Rs.4000/- (Rs. Four
thousand only) on 10.02.20i1 from Sri T. Krishna
Rao towards SSY deposit @Rs.2000/-
each in respect of SSY A/cs No. 3738925058 & 37389
19972 and made entries in the said
SSY pass books and impressed date stamp impr
essions without the knowledge of the
5PM, Saravakota SO and did not hand over the
deposit amount of Rs.4,000 / - to the Sub
Postmaster, Saravakota SO and misused the
deposit amount of Rs.4,000/- for his
personal purpose.

3. The main submissions made by the Appellant in

his appeal dated 27.06 .2023 in brief are
that-

a) He was aged 47 years and belong to Scheduled

Caste . He has rendered unblemished
total service of more than 04 years with utmost devo
tion and there is a long way abou t
18 years for him to serve the Department.

b) That durin g the course of preliminary hearing

held on 18.11.2022, the IO has read over
all the contents in vernacular language and he
admitted all the articles of charges
unconditionally and also submitted a representa
tion to the Inquiry Offic er to that
effect, due to non awareness of the Rules on the subje
ct.

c) That it is learn t that the Inquiry Officer in Para

No. 4 of his Daily Order Sheet No. 01
dated 18.11.2022 mentioned that "It was also infor
med of the privileges which can be
availed by the charged GDS in facing the Rule
lOB Inquiry to defen d the case" . For
which, he stated that the said provision was only
recorded in English language but he
was not informed to him in Vernacular language
by the IO. If he woul d have known
the said privilege, he woul d have definitely avail
ed ·the said privilege and that he was
kept in dark ness by the Inquiry Officer.

d) That it is a crystal clear fact that he was not even

informed by the Inquiry Officer at any
time of the Inquiry regarding availability of prov
ision to utilize the services of the
Defence Assistant by the charged GDS, which clear
ly evide nt that he was denied the
reasonable opportunity to utilize the services of
the Defe nce Assis tant.
Page 2 of 5
 depo sitor s and to cred it the sam e in the Post
e) That rece iving d epos it amo unt from the
his assig ned dutie s. Even then , with an
offic e acco unts is not par t and parc el of
nt hold ers, he acce pted their requ ests
inten tion to assis t the both the SSY a ccou
/- from the said depo sitor s at will and
volu ntar ily and rece ived runo unt of Rs.6 ,000
d not cr e dit the said amo unt of Rs.6 ,000 /-
plea sure of said d epos it-ors and that h e coul
to som e unfo rese en path etic dom estic
into Post offic e acco unts inun e diately due
severe suffering of his depe nden t
circumstances beyond his conb·ol, which includes
total amo unt of Rs.6,000/- to the
and widowed mother. However he retu rned the
respective SSY depo sitors.

e beyond his knowledge and he

t) Tha t he has reali zed his lapses which have taken plac
in future and request the kind
assured that he shall never resort to such lapses
to serve the Department further
Appellate Authority to provide him -an opportunity
That he apologize before the
with rnuc h integrity, devotion and responsibility.
ed by him accidently but not
Appellate Authority for the irregularities committ
intentionally.
eal dated 27.06.2023 are:-
4. The Comments of the Disciplinary Authority on the App
, the Appellant unconditionally
a) During the Preliminary inquiry held on 18.11.2022
and requested to stop the
admitted all the articles of charge sheet dated 13.10.2022
inqu iry at that stage. In this regard, the Appellan
t has submitted his written deposition
date d 18.11.2022 to the Inquiry Officer during the
course of Inquiry.

Inspector Posts, Srikakulam East sub

b) In the statement dated 20.07.2021 given before the
that he received an amo unt of
division, the Appellant has unconditionally admitted
in r/ o SSY A/ c No. 4787172876
Rs.2000/- from Sri R. Appanna towards SSY deposit
Rao tow ards SSY depo sit in r / o
and that an amount of Rs.4,000 / - from Sri T. Krishna
total amo unt of Rs.6,000/- was
SSY A/c s No.s 3738925058 & 3738919972 and that
ose with out crediting into PO
accepted by him and utilized for his personal purp
accounts.

:,_ Conclusion: -
issued by the Adhoc Disciplinary
I have carefully gone through the Appeal, Proceedings
Authority and all the other connected records of the
case.

t is that he unauthorizedly accepted

(a) The main irregularity committed by the Appellan
depositors and misa ppro pria ted
the SSY deposit am.aunt of Rs.6,000/- from the two SSY
ose with out cred iting into PO
the said deposit amo unt of Rs.6,000/- for his personal purp
the App ella nt.
accounts . This clearly shows the lack of integrity on the part of

Page 3 of S
 (b) As seen from t,e l DailY Order Sheet No. 01 dated 18.11.2022, the Inquiry .Authority. has
.
noted that the Appellant was informed of the privileges which can be availed by him m
facing the Rule 10 (B) inquiry to defend the case. /\fter read over of a~ ~e c~ntents of
Rule 10 charge sheet in vernacular language i.e., Telugu language and mtimation of"the
privileges which can be availed by the Appellant to defend the case by the _IO. 1:1e
A, Uai,t has unc011ditionally admitted all the articl, 1s of charges framed against hun
n,e ·
before 'the Inquiry Authoril'y and requested the Inq uiry Authonty
'
to stop th' . at
e mqtury
that stage and duly si.gt,ed the Daily O rder Sheet No. 01 dated 18.11.2022 in English
Language and written as "Received copy" on the DOS dated 18.11.2022. The version of
th e Appellant that he was kept Dark by the IO without intimating the privilege of
utilization of the services of the Defence Assistant by the charged GOS clearly evident
that he was denied the reasonable opportunity is not correct and very far from the truth.
Since he was already informed by the IO about all the privileges to defend the case on
his behalf, as such he has also signed the Daily Order Sheet on 18.11.2022. However he
admitted his lapses/ allegations in his statements given before the Investigating Officer
and in his deposition dated 18.11.2022 before the Inquiry Officer. Even in the Appeal
preferred by the Appellant, he did not submit any evidence/ version to disprove the
charges framed against him. The admittance of th~ articles of the charges by the
Appellant is only due to his inability to disprove the facts.

(c) It is observed that the Appellant has unauthorized ly accepted the deposit amount of
Rs.6,000 / - from the SSY depositors and made entry of deposits of SSY deposits in the
SSY pass books and made date stamp impressions without the knowledge of the Sub
Postmaster, Saravakota SO by unauthorizde ly making entries in the Pass books for
which he is not Competent and by accessing the date stamp impressions of Saravakota
SO in the absence of the 5PM, Saravakota SO is only with a Mollified intention but not
with any other intention. The Appellant has returned the deposit amount of Rs.6,000/-
to the two SSY depositors only after they had came to know about the financial
irregularities committed by the Appellant in their respective SSY accounts and only
when they asked to return t11-e deposit amount.
(d) By summing above, it is crystal clear that the Appellant has committed financial
irregularities in two SSY accounts standing open at Saravakota SO and based on oral
and docwnentary evidence, the charges framed against the Appellant are established
fully. This clearly shows lack of devotion and integrity of the Appellant in discharging
his duties. It warrants deterrent action for rcisappropriation of the Governmen t/Public
money, since misappropri ation of the Governmen t/ Public money is breach of trust.
(e) The Appellant has clearly admitted that the irregularities cornnutted by him during the
inquiry. Once admitted before the Inquiry Officer in clear terms orally an d in writing
makes the event irreversible. As per the inquiries p rocedure wha t is adduced during the
inquiry and before the inquiry Officer alone assumes value of evidence.

Page 4 of 5
 Arnendm.ents/ .
. Wtthdrawals s ubsequ e nt to that s hall not becom e part of evidence. While
,,v orkmg as G .
ra mm DAk St>va k, h e is ~x p ected to re nde r basic postal services to rural
pop~lla tion W h1.) ar0 1"l)Sll y illit-cr Al'C a nd have a lot of faith in the Department. The
verston of the Appdli:mt th a t th1.' i1Tegula l'ities are just a ccidental but not intentional
cannot bl' simply lw l'Wt1Sable . I lav ing four years o f service as GOS and being a
l'l'Spon sibk pl)Sition ,)f G I >S I )A k Seva k , h e should have _been m~e car:ful. However,
takit\~ all aspcd'1- And fod1.rn l posting as discussed above mto consideration and also on
hurnanita1·ian grou nd s.

Accordingly, J V. Satyanarayana, Superintendent of Post Offices and Appellate

Authority in exercise of the powers conferred in Rule 18 of GDS (Conduct &
Engagen~ent) Rules 2020 hereby modify the penalty of "Removal from engagement with
immediate effect" imposed vide Adhoc Disciplinary Authority and Inspector Posts,
Rajam sub division Memo No. INV /GVR/Saravakota/2023 dated 29.03.2023 to that of
"Reduction of pay of the GDS to minimum of the TRCA for a period of four (04) years.
Durin g the period of punishment, he will not earn any annual increase and on expiry of
punishment, the reduction will not have effect of postponing the future increases in his
TRCA. GOS may be shifted to any other sub division apart from his parent sub division
on vigilance grounds. ~/
V. SATYPd<JARAYANA
APPELLATE AUTHORITY &
Supdt. Of Post Offices,
Srikakulam Division - 532001.
RegdAD:
To
Sri G. Venugopala Rao,
GDS MD (Removed),
Saravakota SO - 532 426.
[Through IP SKL East sub division]
A copy of this memo is issued to:
(Regd)
1.The Inspector Posts, Srikakulam East sub division for information. He will please ensure
that the copy of the memn is served to the Appellant under clear acquittance and the
acquittance be sent to t':.i.s office by duly attested and keeping one photocopy in your
file.
~ BII Branch, 0/ o SPOs SKI_,~A for information and necessary action.
3. The Postmaster, Amadalava lasa HO for information and for n/ a.
4. Spare. ~ /
. V. SATYAN)d{A'i'ANA
APPELLATE AUTHORl'N &
Supdt. Of Post Offices,
Srikakulam Division - 532001.