Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Poornima Suresh Shedgeri vs Department Of Posts on 16 October, 2025
1
OA.No.170/00458/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00458/2024
ORDER RESERVED ON: 22.09.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 16.10.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A)
Miss Poornima Suresh Shedgeri,
Aged: 28 years,
D/o Suresh Nagappa Shedgeri,
Ex postal assistant,
Karwar HO-581301,
Residing at:
Near G.C. College Road,
Vandige,
Ankola-581357 ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri P.Kamalesan)
Vs.
1. Union of India, Through Secretary,
Department of post, Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi 110001.
2. Chief Post Master General,
Karnataka Circle, Bangalore-560001.
3. Post Master General,
North Karnataka Region,
Dharwad-580001.
4. Director of Postal Services,
Dharwad Region, Dharwad-580001
5. Superintendent of Post offices,
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU
CAT Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.10.16
18:00:54+05'30'
2
OA.No.170/00458/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
Karwar Division, Karwar-581301 ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri.Sayed S Kazi)
ORDER
PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
1. This OA has been filed on 13.08.2024 for seeking quashment of order dated 12.1.2024 (Annexure A-3) and order dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure A-5). The reliefs claimed in the Original Application is as under:
"1. Quash the O/O superintendent of post offices, karwar Division, karwar-581301 Memo No. KWR/F/PSs/2023 dated: 12-1- 2024 Annexure-A3 issued by respondent No.5.
2. Quash the O/O Post master General, North Karnataka Region, Dharwad-580001 Memo No. NKR/VIG/ Appeal/086/2023 dated; 25-4-2024 Annexure-A5 issued by respondent No.4.
3. Consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the applicant in service from 12-1- 2024, with all consequential benefits.
4. Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. It is an admitted fact that the applicant was appointed as GDS BPM on 13.03.2016 and thereafter she was selected as 'Postal Assistant' through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and appointed as 'Postal Assistant' with effect from 22.04.2022. SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.10.16 18:00:54+05'30' 3 OA.No.170/00458/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
3. A charge sheet Annexure A-1 dated 16.08.2023 containing 12 charges was issued to the applicant. The applicant submitted the reply to the aforesaid charge sheet on 22.08.2023. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed. The applicant admitted all charges; therefore, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 20.10.2023 (Annexure R-4). The aforesaid report was communicated to the applicant then she also submitted her reply. Thereafter, the punishment order Annexure A-3 was passed on 12.01.2024 by which the applicant was removed from service. The applicant preferred an appeal (Annexure A-4) dated 12.02.2024, which was also dismissed by the Competent Authority vide order dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure A-5).
4. It is submitted by the applicant that entire amount has been deposited. The applicant challenges the aforesaid order of termination upon the ground that:-
(i) Applicant was forced to accept the charges. Upon the basis of admission, the punishment order has been passed and the applicant has been removed from service.
(ii) Harsh punishment has been given. Looking to the nature of misconduct committed by the applicant, some leniency was required in the quantum of punishment.
5. The respondents opposed the claim of the applicant by filing the written reply statement on 02.12.2024. The respondents submitted that SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.10.16 18:00:54+05'30' 4 OA.No.170/00458/2024/CAT/BANGALORE on 22.08.2023 (Annexure R-2) the applicant admitted the all 12 charges. During the inquiry, she also admitted the charges. In this regard, she submitted the written admission on 19.10.2023 (Annexure R-3). Upon the basis of the aforesaid admission, the punishment order has been passed. The applicant voluntarily admitted the charge. There was no pressure upon the applicant by the Department. Looking at the misconduct of the applicant, proper punishment has been awarded. Therefore, no interference is required.
6. It appears that the Inquiry Officer submitted his report (Annexure R-4) upon the basis of admission of all charges made by the applicant herself on 19.10.2023. The respondents submitted the copy of written admission of the applicant which was submitted by the applicant during the inquiry sitting dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure R-3). It is stated in Annexure R-3 that:
"From, Poornima Suresh Shedgeri, PA Karwar HO Karwar-581 301 To, Arun N Kamat IO & ASP HQ O/o SPO's Karwar-581301 Respected Sir, Sub: Regarding Departmental Enquiry against me.
1, Poornima Suresh Shedgeri, PA Karwar HO, today on 19.10.2023 at 11.30hrs, as per your letter No.KWR/IO/Karwar HO/PSS/2023 dtd 03.10.2023, I am attending for the departmental SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.10.16 18:00:54+05'30' 5 OA.No.170/00458/2024/CAT/BANGALORE enquiry at Aversa Post Office. Superintendent of Post Offices, Karwar Division has issued memo of charges vide memo No.KWR/F/PSS/2023 dtd 16.08.2023. I have received the said memo through register post on 18.08.2023. I have received the letter No.KWR/F/rule 14 PSS/IO/2023 dtd 12.09.2023, IO/PO appointment order for enquiry against me, I Poornima Suresh Shedgeri, PA Karwar, have seen memo of charges framed against me before 1O/PO during departmental inquiry. IO has explained the charges framed against me vide article no.1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11 and article no.12 in Kannada language. 10 has informed me in detail about the Inquiry rules. And also informed that I can get the help of Defence Assistant for defend on behalf of me. IO has provided me reasonable time to submit my opinion about all the article of charges. I clearly understand the all the article of charges from no. 01 to 12 which are framed against me. And I submit my opinion voluntarily without any compulsion.
Article No.01: I admit unconditionally, voluntarily this article of charge.
Article No.02: I admit unconditionally, voluntarily this article of charge.
Article No.03: I admit unconditionally, voluntarily this article of charge.
Article No.04: I admit unconditionally, voluntarily this article of charge.
Article No.05: I admit unconditionally, voluntarily this article of charge.
Article No.06: I admit unconditionally, voluntarily this article of charge.
Article No.07: I admit unconditionally, voluntarily this article of charge.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.10.16 18:00:54+05'30' 6 OA.No.170/00458/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Article No.08: I admit unconditionally, voluntarily this article of charge.
Article No.09: I admit unconditionally, voluntarily this article of charge.
Article No.10: I admit unconditionally, voluntarily this article of charge.
Article No.11: I admit unconditionally, voluntarily this article of charge.
Article No.12: I admit unconditionally, voluntarily this article of charge.
Above all the statements have been written by me, voluntarily without any compulsion before IO/PO on 19.10.2023 and read, signed and submitted.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Date: 19.10.2023
(Poornima Suresh Shedgeri)
Place: Aversa "
7. Upon the basis of the aforesaid admission in Annexure R-3, the Inquiry Officer comes to the conclusion that all charges are proved. It is mentioned in the Inquiry Report at paragraphs 3 and 4 that:
"3. The preliminary hearing was held on 19.10.2023 at Aversa SO. CO and PO have attended the inquiry at Aversa SO. CO confirmed the receipt of charge sheet memo No. KWR/F/PSS/2023 dated at Karwar the 16.08.2023 of SPOs Karwar and appointment of IO/PO memo No. KWR/F/Rule-14/PSS/IO/2023 dated 12.09.2023. The procedure in conducting Rule-14 under SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.10.16 18:00:54+05'30' 7 OA.No.170/00458/2024/CAT/BANGALORE CCS(CCA) rules-1965 has been elaborated to the CO. The contents of Article-I,II,III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X,XI&XII of charge sheet memo dated 16.08.2023 have been translated to Kannada language and informed her. The statutory rules applicable to take the assistance of Defense Assistant have also been explained to CO. CO has admitted all the twelve charges leveled against her unconditionally & categorically and requested to conclude the inquiry process. She has given a letter before IO admitting all the twelve charges unconditionally and unequivocally. Considering her unconditional admittance to all the twelve charges, inquiry was concluded.
4. Conclusion: Self admission is the best admission. Since CO has admitted all the twelve articles of charges unconditionally, the articles of charge I,II,III,IV,V,VI,VII, VIII, IX.X,XI & XII framed in the SPOs Karwar memo No. KWR/F/PSS/2023 dated 16.08.2023 against Miss. Poomima Suresh Shedgeri, Postal Assistant Karwar HO stands PROVED BEYOND ANY IOTA OF DOUBT.
8. It is also an admitted position that vide Annexure A-6 dated 17.09.2022, the applicant deposited the amounts on various dates with her admission in written letters. She deposited the amount of Rs.12,000/-
on 17.09.2022, Rs.36,000/- on 10.10.2022, Rs.7500/- on 27.10.2022 and Rs.2500/- on 11.02.2023. Hence, it is clearly established that the SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.10.16 18:00:54+05'30' 8 OA.No.170/00458/2024/CAT/BANGALORE applicant admitted the charges voluntarily and also deposited the amounts.
9. Before this Court, she took the plea that the aforesaid admission was based on force applied by the departmental officers. But the aforesaid argument cannot be accepted. The appeal dated 12.02.2024 was submitted by the applicant herself. In the aforesaid memo, she did not disclose any facts about the pressure behind the admission of the charges. She only mentioned that, "...... simply as per his suggestion of the higher ups adjust accepted the charges as I was much fear about the situation."
10. Therefore, the aforesaid argument cannot be accepted, because it appears that the applicant herself admitted the entire 12 charges voluntarily, unconditionally and without any compulsion .Upon the basis of the aforesaid charges, the removal order has been passed.
11. Another point raised by the applicant is related to the "punishment" provided to her.
12. It is an admitted position of law that, in the punishment order, the scope 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 SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.10.16 18:00:54+05'30' 9 OA.No.170/00458/2024/CAT/BANGALORE cannot be subjected to judicial review unless it shocks the conscience of the Court. In the case of State of 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 position of trust where honesty and SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.10.16 18:00:54+05'30' 10 OA.No.170/00458/2024/CAT/BANGALORE 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."
13. 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.
14. 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 SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.10.16 18:00:54+05'30' 11 OA.No.170/00458/2024/CAT/BANGALORE 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 .."
15. In Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah v. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SCC 605, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"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...."
16. 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 SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.10.16 18:00:54+05'30' 12 OA.No.170/00458/2024/CAT/BANGALORE 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 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."
17. 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 SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.10.16 18:00:54+05'30' 13 OA.No.170/00458/2024/CAT/BANGALORE should not interfere in the concurrent findings by the authorities below."
18. 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.
19. If we examine the present case, then it appears that 12 charges were framed against the applicant and all charges were admitted by the applicant. In each charge, she received various amounts from the general public and also made the manual entry in the passbook and affixed the date and stamp, but the amount was not deposited in the Government fund. The same type of misconduct was repeated several times. Therefore, it is clearly established that the applicant cheated the general public and also destroyed the image of the Postal Department.
20. In the punishment order, the Competent Authority also mentioned the reason behind the aforesaid punishment. In the aforesaid order, it has been stated that:
" The act of misappropriation committed by the charged official is grave in nature. India Post being a service oriented organization has its mission of providing high quality of service throughout India to be recognised as an efficient, excellent and trustworthy organization exceeding the expectations of customers. India. Post has SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.10.16 18:00:54+05'30' 14 OA.No.170/00458/2024/CAT/BANGALORE trusted its workforce should be very prompt, honest and trustworthy in their normal discharge of officials duties. In the instance case charged official has misappropriated public money through RD non credits to the Department in which the public bave deposited their hard money in the Department as savings focussing financial needs in future with utmost trust and faith with the Department. The act of the charged official in misappropriating the public deposit money has caused high level hardship to the depositors. The depositors lost the trust, which they have placed in the Department due to the above misconduct of the charged official. Thereby the image of Department has been tarnished by the charged official. Further the points put forth by the charged official in her representation dtd 22.08.2023 in response to charge sheet are not at all convincing. In her representation she has admitted her mistakes and assured that she will not commit such type of mistakes in future and requested to take lenient view. By admitting the charge the gravity of the offence will not reduce. There is no question of taking this type of offence leniently. Mere regretting and asking apology for the charges will not reduce the gravity of the misdemeanour and offence committed by the charged official. If this type offence not dealt seriously, then it will give a wrong message to other officials in the Division. The punishment should commensurate with gravity of the offence committed.
The gravity of misconduct/offence committed by the charged official Miss. Poornima Suresh Shedgeri is not a tolerable one and she is unsuitable to be continued in service in the Department. Her continuation in the SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.10.16 18:00:54+05'30' 15 OA.No.170/00458/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Department is totally undesirable and she deserves no sympathy at all. She deserves no clemency and the case warrants a deterrent action. Hence, based on the gravity of the offence/misconduct committed by the charged official and the fact that the charged official has admitted all the twelve charges levelled against her, as such to meet the ends of justice, I pass the following order."
21. The Appellate Authority also considered the aforesaid ground in his order at Annexure A-5 dated 25.4.2024. It appears that the Appellate Authority also provided a hearing opportunity for the applicant. Thereafter, he mentioned in his order as follows:
"6. Appellant has requested for personal hearing vide her Appeal dated 12.02.2024. Her request was considered and she was directed to attend this office on 01.04.2024 at 1500 hours vide this office letter dated 26.03.2024. Appellant attended the personal hearing and pleaded following points:
1. She halls from a poor family and she is the breadwinner of the family. She was engaged as GDS BPM on 13.03.2016 and promoted to the cadre of postal assistant on 22.04.2022.
2. Appellant admitted to have misappropriated the amount for her personal needs and credited the amount so misappropriated in September 2023. She submits that she has committed the mistake owing to some domestic constraints and pleads to be excused.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.10.16 18:00:54+05'30' 16 OA.No.170/00458/2024/CAT/BANGALORE She requests to award any penalty other than the removal from service.
I have examined all the relevant facts of the case. The Appellant has worked as GDS BPM and promoted to the cadre of Postal Assistant in the department. She has misappropriated the public money and failed to maintain integrity. Hence from the above discussion it is evident that the penalty is imposed after taking into consideration the gravity of lapses mentioned in the charge sheet. Further, the final order of penalty was passed based on the documentary evidences available on record and is rational, fair and judicious. In view of this, the following order is passed."
22. As far as the amounts are concerned, the applicant has filed Annexure A-6 to show the fact that she had deposited the entire amounts. But in our considered view, only upon the aforesaid basis, no leniency is required. It has been held in Union of India and Others Vs. M. Duraisamy, 2022[2] All India 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. Therefore, it appears that looking into the gravity of misconduct committed by the applicant, a proper punishment has been awarded. The SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.10.16 18:00:54+05'30' 17 OA.No.170/00458/2024/CAT/BANGALORE FIR (Annexure A-8) under Section 409 and 420 of I.P.C. was also registered against the applicant on 06.02.2024. Therefore, it can be said that a proper punishment has been awarded to the applicant and, in this type of case, no leniency is required.
24. Therefore, in the aforesaid situation, no reason is found to interfere with the punishment order and the Original Application is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the Original Application is dismissed.
25. Both parties shall bear their own costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/sv/
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU
CAT Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.10.16
18:00:54+05'30'