Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Madan N Deshpande vs Department Of Posts on 30 January, 2026
1
OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00511/2024
ORDER RESERVED ON: 27.01.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 30.01.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A)
Sri Madan N Deshpande
Age: 59 years,
S/o Narasimha,
Ex. GDS BPM,
Shadagupri BO
A/C Akkialur SO
Haveri Postal Dn,
Residing at:
Vithoba Oni
Hangal Puttana Mathu Tauku
Haveri - 581 104. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri P. Kamalesan)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by Secretary,
Department of Post,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Chief Post Master General,
Karnataka Circle,
Bangalore - 560 001.
mikashamikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
2026.01.30
suneja 15:31:41+05'30'
2
OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
3. Post Master General,
N.K. Region,
Dharwad - 580 001.
4. Director of Postal Services,
N.K. Region,
Dharwad - 580 001.
5. Superintendent of Post Office,
Haveri Division,
Haveri - 581 110. ...Respondents
(By Shri S. Prakash Shetty, Senior Panel Counsel)
ORDER
PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
1. Initially, this OA was filed on 02.09.2024 for the quashment of punishment order dated 14.02.2023 (Annexure - A11) and the appeal rejection order dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure - A13). The relief claimed in para 8 of the OA is as under:-
"i.Quash the superintendent of Post Offices, Haveri Dn, Haveri-581110, Memo No.F2/Iv/II/2019-20 dated: 14-2-2023 Annexure-A11 issued by respondent No.5.
ii. Quash the O/O Post Master General, N.K. Region, Dharwad-580001, Memo No. NKR/VIG/Appeal/072/2023 issued by respondent No.4 - Annexure-A13 dated: 28.07.2023."
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 3 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
2. At the time of final arguments on 27.01.2026, the applicant counsel submitted that he restricted his claim only up to the quantum of punishment. He does not wants to challenge the merit of the punishment order and the appellate order. Therefore, the arguments have been heard only upon the quantum of punishment. It was mentioned in the aforesaid order sheet:-
"Shri P Kamalesan for the applicant. Shri S Prakash Shetty for the respondents. Final arguments heard.
Initially, the applicant challenged the Annexure A11 and A13 which are the termination order and the appeal dismissal order. But during arguments, the counsel restricted his claim only upto the quantum of punishment. It is argued by the counsel that disproportionate punishment has been awarded. Therefore, the arguments at length heard upon the quantum of punishment.
Reserved for orders."
3. It is submitted by the counsel for applicant that the applicant has been 'removed from engagement' by the punishment order. Looking to the service period of the applicant and looking to the entire circumstances of the case including the fact that the applicant deposited the entire mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 4 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE amount, the punishment should be lenient. Harsh punishment has been given which is required to be quashed or modified.
4. On the other side, the counsel for respondents submitted that proper inquiry was conducted. The applicant deposited the amount of misappropriation but that is not sufficient for leniency. Because the applicant dented the image of Post Office and the Government, therefore, no leniency was required in the case. Appropriate punishment has been awarded.
5. Therefore, the only question remains before this Court is :- "Whether the punishment of removal from engagement is appropriate or not?"
6. It is settled position of law that, in the case of punishment, the scope of interfere by court is very limited. When it appears that the punishment is too harsh, then the Court may interfere. It has been held that courts do not interfere with quantum of punishment, unless there exists sufficient reasons. The punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be subjected to judicial review unless it shocks the conscience of the Court. In the case of State of mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 5 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Meghalaya and Others Vs. Mecken Singh N. Marak,(2008) 7 SCC 580 = 2008(6) SLR 461 (SC) it has been held:-
"14. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The jurisdiction of the High Court, to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. The High Court, although has jurisdiction in appropriate case, to consider the question in regard to the quantum of punishment, but it has a limited role to play. It is now well settled that the High Courts, in exercise of powers under Article 226, do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefor. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. In the impugned order of the High Court no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice.
15. While considering the question of proportionality of sentence imposed on a delinquent at the conclusion of departmental enquiry, the court should also take into consideration, the mental set-up of the delinquent, the type of duty to be performed by him and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision- making process. If the charged employee holds the mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 6 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct, in such cases has to be dealt with with iron hands."
7. In Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"14. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (1996) 9 SCC 69, it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer /employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct .."
8. In Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah v. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SCC 605, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 7 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE "10. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable...."
9. In State Bank of India v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde, (2006) 7 SCC 212, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"21. Confronted with the facts and the position of law, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that leniency may be shown to the respondent having regard to long years of service rendered by the respondent to the Bank. We are unable to countenance with such submission. As already said, the respondent being a bank officer holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. The respondent was a Manager of the Bank and it needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer so that the confidence of the public/depositors is not impaired. It is for this reason that when a bank officer commits misconduct, as in the present case, for his personal mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 8 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE ends and against the interest of the bank and the depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands and he does not deserve to be dealt with leniently."
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Mohan Vs. Union of India and others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3392, said that in respect of delinquent bank employees a distinct jurisprudence has developed. The court relied upon Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364, Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah v. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SCC 605, and State Bank of India v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde, (2006) 7 SCC 212 and observed:-
"81. Therefore, the approach of the Court towards a bank employee against whom charges of serious financial misconduct has been proved by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, after a reasoned order based on material evidence, should not be lenient and must be dealt in a strict manner. Unless violation of principles of natural justice, inter alia, is said to have been proved by the Petitioner causing prejudice to the Petitioner in his defence, the Court should not interfere in the concurrent findings by the authorities below."
11. In the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (2013) 12 SCC 372 = AIR 2013 SC 3540 the Supreme Court discussed mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 9 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE the principles & thereafter summed up and summarized the law in paragraph 19:-
"19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarized as follows:
19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.
19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary /departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority.
19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.
19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case.
19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 10 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable."
12. In the case of Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1039 : 2000 SCC OnLine SC 1609 = AIR 2000 SC 3689 the Supreme Court, after considering the Wednesbury principles and the doctrine of proportionality, has observed and held that the question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority and the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited.
13. In the case of State of M.P. v. Munna Choubey and another "AIR 2005 S.C. 682 = 2005 AIR SCW 443 [8.10.2004] and, Adu Ram v. Mukna and others " AIR 2004 S.C. 5064 =2004 AIR SCW 5773 [24.1.2005.] the Supreme Court observed that the social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoits, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 11 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against societal interest, which needs to be cared for, and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.
14. Nature of work of post office and Bank is the same in relation to the money transections. Thus, it is clear that no leniency can be shown to the post office or Bank employee when grave charges against him have been proved in the disciplinary proceedings.
15. It appears from the record that the applicant was appointed as "MD Messenger" from 11.09.1994. He was placed under put-off duty vide Memorandum dated 20.03.2020 (Annexure - A1). Thereafter, the competent authority ratified the put-off duty vide his order dated 02.04.2020 (Annexure - A2). A charge sheet was issued on 03.12.2021 as Annexure - A7. The following charges were included in the aforesaid charge sheet:-
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 12 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE "ARTICLE - I That the said Shri M N Deshapande GDS BPM (POD) Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO while working as GDS BPM Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO for the period from 08.04.2003 to 20.03.2020 has accepted the following deposits tendered by Sri Ramesh T Ganeshannanavar into his SB account number 2890960310 standing open at Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO and also effected following withdrawals to Sri Ramesh T Ganeshannanavar, made passbook entries, authenticated the transactions with his initials and with or without date stamp impressions, but failed to account for the transactions into BO accounts either on the day of transactions or on subsequent days and thereby contravened Rule 131,133,134, 174, 175 of Rules for Branch offices [6th edition, 2nd reprint (corrected up to March 1982] and therefore it is alleged that by the above acts, the aforesaid GDSBPM has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required under Rule 21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks [Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2020.
S Account Type of Account holder Unaccounted Unaccounted l Number Accoun name deposits withdrawals N t o Date Amou Date Amount nt 1 2890960310 SB Sri Ramesh T 02.02.2016 9200 31.03.2019 1400 Ganeshannanavar 02.02.2016 12000 23.10.2019 3000 31.03.2018 30000 13.11.2019 5000 21.06.2019 1400 30.11.2019 3500 mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 13 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE 24.06.2019 4000 17.12.2019 2000 14.05.2019 1400 31.12.2019 1400 22.01.2020 4000 28.01.2020 1400 26.02.2020 5000 10.03.2020 5000 ARTICLE-II That the said Shri M N Deshpande GDS BPM (POD) Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO while working as GDS BPM Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO for the period from 08.04.2003 to 20.03.2020 has accepted an amount of Rs.500/- on 11.10.2014 tendered by Sri Heggappa F Doddamni into his SB account number 2890979534 standing open at Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO, made passbook entry, authenticated the transaction with his initial, but failed to account for the transaction into BO accounts either on the day of transaction or on subsequent days and thereby contravened Rule 131, 174, 175 of Rules for Branch offices [6th edition, 2nd reprint (corrected up to March 1982] and therefore it is alleged that by the above act, the aforesaid GDSBPM has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required under Rule 21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks [Conduct & Engagement] Rules 2020.
ARTICLE III That the said Shri M N Deshapande GDS BPM (POD) Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO while working as GDS BPM Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO for the period from 08.04.2003 to 20.03.2020 has mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 14 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE accepted an amount of Rs.1200/- and Rs.3000/- on 12.10.2019 tendered by Smt Girijamma M Kolagi into her SB account number 3929862469 standing open at Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO, made passbook entry, authenticated the transaction with his initial and date stamp impression of the BO, but failed to account for the transactions into BO accounts either on the day of transaction or on subsequent days and thereby contravened Rule 131, 174, 175 of Rules for Branch offices [6th edition, 2nd reprint (corrected up to March 1982] and therefore it is alleged that by the above act, the aforesaid GDSBPM has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required under Rule 21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks [Conduct & Engagement] Rules 2020.
ARTICLE - IV That the said Shri M N Deshapande GDS BPM (POD) Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akdalur SO while working as GDS BPM Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO for the period from 08.04.2003 to 20.03.2020 has accepted an amount of Rs.3500/-on 15.03.2019 tendered by Smt Savakka G Daddikoppa into her SB account number 2890978681 standing open at Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO, made passbook entry, authenticated the transaction with his initial, but failed to account for the transaction into BO accounts either on the day of transaction or on subsequent days and thereby contravened Rule 131, mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 15 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE 174, 175 of Rules for Branch offices [6th edition, 2nd reprint (corrected up to March 1982] and therefore it is alleged that by the above act, the aforesaid GDSBPM has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required under Rule 21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks [Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2020.
ARTICLE-V That the said Shri M N Deshapande GDS BPM (POD) Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO while working as GDS BPM Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO for the period from 08.04.2003 to 20.03.2020 has accepted an amount of Rs.3000/- on 30.05.2019 tendered by Smt Girijavva Mallappa Anavatti into her SB account number 3562957577 standing open at Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO, made passbook entry, authenticated the transaction with his initial, but failed to account for the transaction into BO accounts cither on the day of transaction or on subsequent days and thereby contravened Rule 131, 174, 175 of Rules for Branch offices [6th edition, 2nd reprint (corrected up to March 1982] and therefore it is alleged that by the above act, the aforesaid GDSBPM has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required under Rule 21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks [Conduct & Engagement] Rules 2020.
ARTICLE - VI mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 16 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE That the said Shri M N Deshapande GDS BPM (POD) Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO while working as GDS BPM Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO for the period from 08.04.2003 to 20.03.2020 has accepted an amount of Rs.3600/- on 12.06.2019 tendered by Smt Lalitavva P Narchikatti into her RD account number 2891046167 standing open at Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO, made passbook entry, authenticated the transaction with his initial, but failed to account for the transaction into BO accounts cither on the day of transaction or on subsequent days and thereby contravened Rule 144 read with Rule 131, 174, 175 of Rules for Branch offices [6th edition, 2nd reprint (corrected up to March 1982] and therefore it is alleged that by the above act, the aforesaid GDSBPM has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required under Rule 21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks [Conduct & Engagement] Rules, 2020.
ARTICLE - VII That the said Shri M N Deshapande GDS BPM (POD) Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO while working as GDS BPM Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO for the period from 08.04.2003 to 20.03.2020 has accepted the following deposits tendered by Sri Nagaraj Kaner for credit into SSA account number 2891067155 opened in the name of Minor Kavya through father guardian Sri Nagaraj Kaner standing mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 17 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE open at Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO, made passbook entry, authenticated the transaction with his initial and with or without date stamp, but failed to account for the transaction into BO accounts cither on the day of transaction or on subsequent days and thereby contravened Rule 131, 174 and 175 of Rules for Branch offices [6th edition, 2nd reprint (corrected up to March 1982] and Provisions of SB order No.2/2015 (Directorate letters F No.116- 57/2014-SB dated 21.01.2015 and 26.02.2015) and therefore it is alleged that by the above acts, the aforesaid GDSBPM has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required under Rule 21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks [Conduct & Engagement] Rules 2020.
Date of Amount of deposit (Rs.)
deposit
24.04.2018 1200
13.01.2019 1200
Total Rs.2400/- (Rupees Two Thousand Four
Hundred Only)
ARTICLE - VIII
That the said Shri M N Deshapande GDS BPM (POD) Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO while working as GDS BPM Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO for the period from 08.04.2003 to 20.03.2020 has accepted the following deposits tendered by Sri Nagaraj Kaner for credit into SSA account number 2891067162 opened in the name of Minor Kavana through father guardian Sri Nagaraj Kaner standing mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 18 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE open at Shyadaguppi BO a/w Akkialur SO, made passbook entry, authenticated the transaction with his initial and with or without date stamp impression of the BO, but failed to account for the transactions into BO accounts either on the day of transaction or on subsequent days and thereby contravened Rule 131, 174 and 175 of Rules for Branch offices [6th edition, 2nd reprint (corrected up to March 1982] and Provisions of SB order No.2/2015 (Directorate letters F No.116-57/2014-SB dated 21.01.2015 and 26.02.2015) and therefore it is alleged that by the above acts, the aforesaid GDSBPM has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required under Rule 21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement] Rules 2020.
Date of deposit Amount of deposit (Rs.) 24.04.2018 1200 13.01.2019 1200 Total Rs.2400/- (Rupees Two Thousand Four Hundred Only) "
16. The charge sheet was served upon the applicant. He filed the detailed reply (Annexure - A8) on 16.02.2022. In the aforesaid reply it was also mentioned:-
"I have not done any mistake with any ill intention and therefore request your kind self to excuse me for the mistakes and further request you to grant me only mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 19 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE one opportunity to be careful in future and guard against any such recurrence."
17. After conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report (Annexure - A9) dated 15.10.2022. In the aforesaid report, the Inquiry Officer found that all article of charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt. The inquiry report was served upon the applicant who filed the detailed reply. Thereafter, following penalty order (Annexure - A11) dated 14.02.2023 was issued and by the aforesaid order, the applicant was removed from engagement with immediate effect:-
"ORDER I, B Narayana Superintendent of Post Offices, Haveri Division, Haveri hereby order that Sri. Madan N Deshapande GDS BPM (POD), Shyadaguppi BO in account with Akkialur SO be "Removed from Engagement" with immediate effect. The period of POD is treated as such."
18. In the light of settled law if we examine the case, then it is found that the Disciplinary Authority also mentioned the following reason behind the punishment:-
"The contention and reasons put forth by the CGDS in connection with the irregularities committed by him cannot be accepted. He has put in more than 25 years of long service as GDS BPM and with this long mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 20 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE experience; he should have worked in such a way that would have made other to follow him. Unfortunately, he has failed to keep up the faith reposed in him by the Department and has acted in a manner unbecoming of dedicated worker. Department of Posts is very well known for its trust worthiness among the public across the nook and corner of the country over the years, particularly in rural areas where the public have an extraordinary faith on the Department represented by its staff. The Department reposes a high sense of trust in Gramin Dak Sevaks, who work in seclusion. High standard of integrity is expected from all such persons. The charged GDS being one such representative in his workplace has axed to the very budge of this trust. The offence committed by the CGDS is grave and calls for severe action. Considering all the aspects of the case in great detail, I pass the following order.........".
19. The applicant preferred the appeal and the Appellate Authority also decided the appeal on 28.07.2023 vide Annexure
- A13. The Appellate Authority also justified the punishment and mentioned in para 2.3 as under:-
"2.3 Appellant holds that he had worked hard for many years in the department and he has already deposited the small amount claimed in embezzlement case voluntarily.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 21 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Observation: Appellant should understand that it is essential to recognize that past good work or hard work doesn't necessarily excuse or justify present inappropriate actions. The halo effect can cloud the judgment and lead to overlook potential flaws or mistake in someone's current conduct simply because they have a track record of being hard worker. Hence the request of the Appellant to consider his hard work rendered in past years while deciding present disciplinary case cannot be accepted. The total amount defrauded by the Appellant as per the reports is Rs 45900/- plus Normal Interest and penal interest of Rs.14134/-, Total Rs.60034/- and hence the phrase coined by the Appellant "small amount claimed in embezzlement" is not acceptable. CONCLUSION: As discussed in detail in preceding paragraphs, I feel that there are no valid grounds on behalf of appellant and hence I decline to interfere, finding that the appeal lacks substance and is devoid of merit ......."
20. The main argument of the applicant counsel is based upon the fact that amount has been deposited by the applicant. It is submitted that the entire amount of misappropriation has been deposited by the applicant. It is not in dispute that the applicant deposited Rs. 44,000/- on 20.03.2020, Rs. 5,000/- on 24.07.2020 and Rs. 7,800/- on 10.09.2020. mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 22 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
21. If we peruse the memorandum of charge, then it is found that:-
(i) As per 1st charge the amount was received from one account holder, between the period from 02.02.2016 to 14.05.2019 in 06 transactions.
(ii) As per 2nd charge, the amount was received on 11.10.2014.
(iii) As per 3rd charge, the amount was received on 12.10.2019.
(iv) As per 4th charge, the amount was received on 15.03.2019.
(v) As per 5th charge, the amount was received on 30.05.2019.
(vi) As per 6th charge, the amount was received on 12.06.2019.
(vii) As per 7th charge, the amount was received on 24.04.2018 & 13.01.2019
(viii) As per 8th charge, the amount was received on 24.04.2018 & 13.01.2019.
22. In our considered view, only upon the basis of aforesaid facts, any leniency was not required. It has been held in Union of India and Others Vs. M. Duraisamy, 2022[2] All India mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 23 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Service Law Journal 473[19.04.2022] that Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee.
23. In the case of Union of India and others Versus Prabhu Diwan Lute, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9468 = (2017) 5 Mah LJ 426 [D.B. Bombay H.C. bench Nagpur decided on 10.02.2017], the employee was working as 'Extra Departmental Branch Post Master', who withdrew money of depositors and used it for personal gain. He admitted his guilt and also deposited amount. The D.B. approved the order of Removal from service and said:-
"28. The charge against the respondent was grave one. He was having direct control over the deposits made in the post office. He was holding the hard earned money of poor depositors in trust. He by his misconduct withdrew the amount of those two depositors and used for his personal gain. Then he admitted his guilt and also deposited the amount. In our view, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority was well within its right to disagree with the findings given by Enquiry Officer as disagreement note clearly shows that Enquiry Officer completely failed to appreciate the documents and the evidence of witnesses examined in departmental enquiry.
29. Therefore, in our view, the order of removal of the respondent from service cannot be faulted with. The mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 24 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE aforesaid discussion leads us to pass the following order."
24. In the case of The Director of Postal Services (Sr), Office of the Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram etc. Vs. Smt. B. Kasthuri Bai, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 7804 [09.03. 2016] [D.B. High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam] the applicant was working as 'Gramin Dak Sevak / Sub Postmaster'. He misappropriated and misused money handed over to her by savings bank account holders for deposit in their accounts. The Court observed that it is not the quantum of the amount involved, but whether the conduct of the employee in handling the same with a dishonest intention could be tolerated or not?
25. In the case of S. Prabakaran Vs. The Registrar, Central dministrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Madras, 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 5 [02.01.2014] [D.B. Madras High Court] the petitioner challenged the order of removal from service which was passed on the ground that petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 2,17,474.85, confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Charge Memo issued, the petitioner has admitted the misappropriation and pleaded for lenience. Considering the gravity of charge, the Postal Department has mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 25 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE chosen to pass an order of removal from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner has preferred O.A. No. 295 of 2011. Tribunal has upheld the order of Postal Department by applying the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1989) 2 SCC 177 (Union of India v. Parma Nanda) and (1995) 6 SCC 749 (B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India). The High Court referred Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank 2007 AIR SCW 4136: JT 2007 (8) SC 588 and said:-
"4. It is a well settled proposition of law that if the Department had lost confidence on its employee, Courts are not expected to interfere with the punishment. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2007 AIR SCW 4136: JT 2007 (8) SC 588 (Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank). In paragraph 20 it is held thus, "..............................Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity. A necessary implication which must be engrafted on the contract of service is that the servant must undertake to serve his master with good faith and fidelity. In a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed. Granting such an employee the relief of reinstatement would be "an act of misplaced sympathy which can mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 26 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE find no foundation in law or in equity." (Vide Air India Corporation, Bombay v. V.A. Ravellow, AIR 1972 SC 1343; The Binny Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1973 SC 1403; Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. Management of Pan American World Airways Inc, AIR 1987 SC 229; Francis Kalein & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1971 SC 2414; Regional Manager, Rajasthan SRTC v. Sohan Lal, (2004) 8 SCC 218; and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M. Chandrashekhar Reddy, 2005 AIR SCW 1232).
In Kanhaiyalal Agrawal v. Factory Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd. (2001) 9 SCC 609, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bona fide loss of confidence in the employee, observing that, (i) the workman is holding the position of trust and confidence; (ii) by abusing such position, he commits act which results in forfeiting the same; and
(iii) to continue him in service/establishment would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the employer, or would be detrimental to the discipline or security of the establishment. Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management, regarding trustworthiness or reliability of the employee, must be alleged and proved."" The same is the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1861 of 2009, Judgment dated 21.6.2010. The said writ appeal was preferred against the order of one of us (N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.) made in W.P. No. 5387 of 2001 dated 27.8.2009. Following the said judgment, the First Bench of this Court wherein one of us (N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.) was a party, in W.A. No. 2096 of 2012 dated 12.3.2013 upheld the order of punishment imposed by the Indian Bank.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 27 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
5. In such circumstance, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2013 is also dismissed."
26. In a recent judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Indraj, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2441 = 2025(3) S.L.J. 435 [DB] = 2025 INSC 1313 [13.11.2025] , facts and misconduct of employee was similar with this case. The employee / Petitioner in O.A. was 'Gramin Dak Sevak/Branch Post Master'. His services were governed by Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. Certain irregularities were found during the course of annual inspection regarding misappropriation of public funds where the GDS, despite receiving amount from the account holders, had not entered the same in the books of accounts though the passbook of the account holders had been stamped. After appropriate enquiry applicant was removed from service. Applicant preferred statutory appeal, which was dismissed. Again he filed O.A. No. 397 of 2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, which was dismissed, than he preferred Writ Petition No. 10369 of 2024 before the High Court, which was allowed. Thereafter State filed petition before Supreme Court. It was observed that applicant mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 28 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE admitted the guilt and The amount embezzled by him had already been deposited in the accounts of the account holders. The Apex Court set-aside the order of High Court. The Court again observed that applicant had admitted in his statement dated 28.04.2012 that the money received by him from the account holders was spent by him for his household purposes. It was proved that the respondent had stamped the passbooks of the account holders but did not make respective entries in the books of accounts maintained in the post office, despite the fact that he had received the amount from the account holders. When caught, he deposited the amount. The Supreme Court Said that mere deposit of the embezzled amount will not absolve an employee of the misconduct. In Para 11 the Court said:-
"11. ............. High Court had misdirected itself while extending the scope of jurisdiction which could be exercised in matter of judicial review. The merits of controversy were gone into. Even the admission made by the respondent and voluntary deposit of the amount misappropriated by him were dealt with and finally the punishment imposed on the respondent was set aside. He was directed to be reinstated back in service. The High Court opined that mere suspicion is not enough to punish him, not realizing the fact that it was not a case of mere suspicion. The documents clearly mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 29 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE established the factum of embezzlement. The passbooks of the account holders were stamped with the receipt of the amount with no corresponding entries in the books of accounts maintained in the post office. It is a matter of chance that the embezzlement made by the respondent came to the notice of the authorities that action could be taken against him while restoring the amount to the post office. However, the fact remains that mere deposit of the embezzled amount will not absolve an employee of the misconduct. Relationship of a customer with a banker is of mutual trust. Any account holder will be satisfied once an entry is made in his passbook regarding deposit of any amount by him in the post office where he had maintained the account. An account holder may not be privy to the manner in which the accounts are maintained by the post office and also whether the corresponding entries were made or not in the books of accounts maintained there. The respondent tried to explain the embezzlement by stating that on account of ignorance of the Rules, the passbooks of the account holders were stamped. Such an explanation cannot be accepted being farfetched. He had been in service for about 12 years. Ignorance of rules of the procedure with so much experience cannot be accepted. There was no defect or error pointed out in the course of inquiry. The High Court had travelled beyond its jurisdiction in trying to explain the admission of the respondent which was nothing else but an afterthought."
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 30 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
27. It appears from the record that various amounts received by the applicant during the period between 02.02.2016 to 12.10.2019. Applicant did not deposit the amount voluntarily. During the course of verification, the misappropriation came into the light and the notice was issued to the applicant. Thereafter, he deposited the aforesaid amount on three dates i.e. 20.03.2020, 24.07.2020 and 10.09.2020. Applicant was serving as a public servant. He received various money from the public but the money was not deposited in the official account. The applicant used the aforesaid money for his own purpose. When the notice was issued thereafter the applicant deposited the amount. Looking to the settled law, the gravity of offence will not be affected by depositing the amount of misappropriation. The applicant was holding a public post. The public faith is also attached with the duties of public servant. The general public handover the amount to the public servant for depositing into the account and they also have the faith upon the public servant and believe that the amount will be deposited in their account by the concerned public servant. But the applicant played the mischievous role and broke the public faith on the public servant. In the aforesaid situation, the applicant was not liable for any leniency. Appropriate reasons mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 31 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE are also given by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority in their orders.
28. The approach of the Courts, in dealing with cases of bank and Post office employees, who are responsible for doing the banking work or money transections with General public, and found accused of serious charges, is very different. The bank/Post-office officials are expected to discharge their duty with utmost integrity and honesty in view of the nature of their duties and functions, involving large financial transactions and public money. Courts deal with such employees with utmost strictness as they are expected to work with highest degree of trustworthiness. In respect of delinquent bank employees a distinct jurisprudence has developed.
29. Therefore, looking to the aforesaid discussion, it is found that appropriate punishment has been awarded that cannot be treated as a harsh punishment. Any ground is not found to interfere in the punishment. Hence, OA is dismissed.
30. Both parties shall bear their own costs. mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2026.01.30 suneja 15:31:41+05'30' 32 OA.No.170/00511/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ms/
mikashamikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
2026.01.30
suneja 15:31:41+05'30'