Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Kumari N Sangeetha vs Deptt Of Posts on 6 March, 2025
1
O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00237/2024
Order Reserved on: 14.2.2025
Date of Order: 6.3.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.K SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Kumari N.Sangeetha,
Aged:29 years,
D/o Nijalingappa,
Ex. GDS BPM/DP/Govinahalu B.O,
A/W Malebennur, Chitradurga Postal Dn,
Chitradurga-577501, Residing at: Machihalu village,
Telagi-586131 ...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, S.K. Region,
Bangalore-560001.
4. Superintendent of Post offices,
Chitradurga Dn,
Chitradurga-577501. ......Respondents
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU
CAT Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.07
17:40:47+05'30'
2
O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
(By Advocate Shri.Sayed S.Kazi for R 1 to 4)
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 claiming the following reliefs:
"a. Quash O/o superintendent of Post offices, Chitradurga Dn, Chitradurga-577501, Memo No.F4- 01/20-21/Dlgs dated: 8-9-2021. Annexure-A4 issued by Respondent No.4.
b. Quash O/O Post Master General, South Karnataka Region, Bangalore -560001 Memo No. SK/STA/9- 5/04/2022/11 dated: 26-7-2022 Annexure-A6 issued by respondent No.3.
C. Consequently Direct the respondent to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits.
d. Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The reliefs are claimed on the grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 5(a) to (f) of the Original Application. The brief facts as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant was working as GDS BPM/DP at Govinahalu BO a/w Malaebennur SO from 18-9-2014. The applicant was served a charge Memorandum on 30-7-2021 and I.O and PO were appointed. The applicant was forced to accept the charges by the 1.O & P.O. and applicant accepted the charges. The SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 3 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE I.O. sent a report dated: 25-8-21 to disciplinary authority that applicant accepted all charges, therefore all charges were proved. The applicant submitted reply to I.O. report dated: 4-9-2021. The disciplinary authority vide letter dated; 8-9-2021, issued proceedings imposing the penalty of removal from service. The applicant submitted a revision Petition on 16-3-2022, which was rejected on 26- 7-2022. Applicant submits that though the alleged withdrawal were Rs.4300/- the applicant was forced to credit as Rs.70,000/- on 27-6- 2020. Therefore the applicant submits that imposing penalty of removal from service for lapses/negligence is disproportionate to the charges alleged against the applicant. Hence the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the aforementioned reliefs.
3. On notice, the respondents have filed their reply statement. No rejoinder has been filed.
4. The case came up for final hearing on 14.2.2025. Shri P.Kamalesan for the applicant and Shri.Sayed.S.Kazi for the respondents were present and heard.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 4 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
5. We have carefully gone through the entire records and considered the rival contention.
6. The basic facts of the case are not denied. Annexure A-1 is the Charge Memorandum dated 30.07.2021 with five Articles of charge. It is supported by Annexure 1- statement of articles of charge framed against the applicant, Annexure II - statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of articles of charge framed against the applicant, Annexure III - list of 40 documents by which the articles of charge framed against the charged officer are proposed to be sustained and Annexure IV - list of 19 witnesses by whom the articles of charge framed against the charged officer was to be substantiated.
7. The Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed and the inquiry started on 25.08.2021. The Inquiry Officer submitted IO and PO report along with written statement of admission submitted by the CGDS during very first day of the inquiry on 25.8.2021 and daily order sheet no.1 dated 25.8.2021 which is at Annexure A-2.
8. It is clear from the proceedings that at the outset of the preliminary hearing, the procedure of Rule - 10 Inquiry under GDS SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 5 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE (C&E) Rules 2020 was explained in detail to the CGDS. She was explained of the facilities available to her under the rules in defending herself. She was asked to confirm whether she was in receipt of Memo of charges no.F4/01/20-21/Dlgs dated 30.07.2021 issued by SPO's - Chitradurga division, Chitradurga. She was asked to confirm whether she was in receipt of Memo of Appointment of IO i.e., Memo F4/01/20-21/Dlgs dated 12.08.2021 and Memo of appointment of PO ie., F4/01/20-21/Dlgs dated 12.8.2021. The CGDS confirmed that she had received the said memo of charges and memo of appointment of IO/PO and she further stated that she has understood the contents of the said Memos. The memo of Charges were read over to CGDS in language understandable to her. She was also made aware that she is at liberty either to admit or deny any or all the charges levelled against her and that the inquiry will be conducted only in respect of the charge/s that are not admitted by her. She was asked to specifically state whether she admits or denies the charges individually. She was asked to avail facility of AGS if she wants to continue to defend the case.
9. In the said inquiry, on the very first day, the charged officer unequivocally admitted all the Articles of charge and accordingly, as SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 6 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE admitted the Articles of charge 1,II,III,IV & V, the Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry based on oral as well as written admission of all the above charges by the charged officer..
10. The Inquiry Officer concluded that all the Articles of charge were admitted unequivocally by the charged officer, all the five charges in Article I,II,III,IV & V have been proved and accordingly, the inquiry was concluded and the report along with all enclosures sent to the Disciplinary Authority vide letter dated 25.08.2021.
11. The disciplinary authority sent a copy of the inquiry report to the charged officer stating that the disciplinary authority would take a suitable decision after considering the report and with a direction to submit her representation, if any, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said letter dated 27.8.2021 and it was mentioned that if no reply is received, the case will be finalise ex-parte. The said letter was delivered to the applicant on 1.9.2021 and representation dated 4.9.2021 was received from the CGDS on 6.9.2021.
12. The CGDS submitted a representation to the show-cause notice stating that she is the eldest daughter of her parents having responsibility and that she had joined the duty on 18.9.2014 at SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 7 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Govinahalu B.O as postmaster and at that time, there were zero transactions in the said B.O and after that she had opened a lot of accounts like 450 to 500 RPCI policies, 250 to 300 RD accounts, 800 to 1000 S. B accounts etc. During her 6 years' service, every year she won the first prize by getting RPCI policies. Hence, she requested to pardon her and to provide one more chance to work without committing any mistakes in the future. Her parents are Coolie workers and have two sisters who are also fully dependent on her and requested service in the department. Clearly at this stage also Articles of charge are not denied, but accepted, and the charged officer has asked for pardon and sympathetic consideration.
13. After carefully considering the entire record before the Disciplinary Authority and considering the further say of the charged officer, the disciplinary authority concluded that the charged officer has admitted all the charges framed against her without any reservation and that she does not want any further inquiry.
14. The disciplinary authority concluded that in the instant cases of withdrawal of money from the SB accounts without the knowledge of the depositors and non-accounting of SB/RD deposits and defrauding SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 8 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE the public money, Department deposes faith in its Grameen Dak Sevak in the rural area that they guard honest. But as the charged officer turned to be against faith which shattered the image of the department in the eye's of general public, by failure to maintain integrity and devotion to duty. Kum.N.Sangeetha has exhibited grave negligence to her duty as GDS BPM. The department will not tolerate such fraudulent practices which may damage its credibility. Therefore, the GDS official with untrustworthiness and undesirable to be continued in the Government service. Taking into consideration of the fact of the case, the disciplinary authority decided that there were sufficient grounds to impose the penalty of removal from engagement with immediate effect vide his order dated 8.9.2021.
15. It is one of the impugned orders against which the applicant has filed revision petition. After going through the entire record, the concerned authority vide its order dated 26.7.2022 has passed the order rejecting the representation dated 16.3.2022 preferred by the applicant against the punishment of removal from engagement imposed by the disciplinary authority's order dated 8.9.2-021. SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 9 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
16. We find that it is a case where the applicant herself has accepted the charges voluntarily and unequivocally. The oral submission before the Inquiry Officer was also followed by a written submission in Kannada by her which is on record.
17. Let us examine the grounds mentioned in the Original Application, one by one, as put forth by the applicant.
18. In paragraph 5(a), the applicant mentions that the respondents adopted coercive methods to accept the charges, which resulted in denial of the principal of natural justice, since she was deprived to cross examine the witnesses and inspect the documents.
The averments are not supported by any evidence, either oral, documentary or any other substantial evidence. As it is clear from the inquiry records, which are placed before us, she has voluntarily accepted all the charges. Hence, telling at this stage that coercion was used by the department, and she was deprived of the principles of natural justice that she could not cross-examine the witnesses and inspect the documents are afterthoughts and are not any acceptable ground for granting any relief. Hence, this paragraph does not support the case of the applicant.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 10 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
19. In paragraph 5(b), the applicant submits that the applicant was alleged to have misappropriated an amount of rs.4300/- in all the five Articles of charges, but she was forced to credit Rs.70,000/- on27-6- 2020, and then ordered POD, and initiated disciplinary proceedings, which was an unfair act of the respondents.
Again, the averments are not supported by any document or fact. It is a matter of fact that no inquiry can be initiated including all and every case of misappropriation and misconduct by any official. Certain selected sample cases are only taken to conduct any disciplinary inquiry for clarity, precision and efficient outcome. So in the charge memorandum dated 30.7.2021, only five instances of misappropriations are listed as five Articles of charge. In those together, the misappropriation may amount to Rs.4300/-, but by mere summing and reckoning that one cannot conclude that her total misappropriation was limited to the said cases only. A lay person could also ask as to why did she credit Rs.70000/- on 27.6.2020 if in those five instances only Rs.4300/- were defalcated? The applicant only knows better and can tell the truth, but it gives an impression that her foot prints of misappropriation may have been much wider, and SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 11 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE the applicant is estopped to make a point of defence that she was forced to credit Rs.70000/- at this level. The applicant would have known that these cases of misappropriation were criminal offence and the Department had spared her from criminal case? Hence, this ground also does not in any way substantiate the case of the applicant.
We have seen and perused the charges in more detail. Article 1 mentions an SB account of one Mrs.Indramma Hindasaghatta Govinahal, Malebennur wherein it is stated that from her Savings Bank Account No.9896474247, on 18.4.2020, without the knowledge of the account holder, Rs.600/- was withdrawn. Similarly, in Article II, it is said that the same depositor, Smt.Indramma Govinahal, Malebenur with account No.9896469311, an amount of Rs.600/- was withdrawn on 18.4.2020 without the knowledge of the depositor. Similarly, in Article III, from Mr.Kabbar Siddappa GT.Katte, Govinahalu with account No.3563280100 Rs.800 was withdrawn on 21.2.2020 whereas the depositor was reported to have expired on 25.10.2019. In Article IV, another depositor, Sakamma G.T, Katti Govinhal, Malebennur with account no.9896508241, Rs.100/- was accepted to credit into her above-mentioned SB account, but she had not accounted the amount into post office accounts. In Article V, it SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 12 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE mentions that another depositor, Hiriyamma w/o Hanumagouda S.V, Hindasghatta Govinahalu, Malebennur with account No.9896674894 gave on five different dates from 21.5.2018 to 4.6.2019 different amounts from Rs.200 to Rs.600/-, totalling to Rs.2200/- were received by the applicant but not credited to the said account in the office.
All these samples of financial irregularities show a pattern of misappropriation and misconduct and there are multiple cases and examples to substantiate the gravity of the misappropriation and misconduct of the applicant, which she had herself accepted at the time of the inquiry under the rules by the Inquiry Officer. And based on her acceptance of charges only, the disciplinary authority and other authorities have imposed penalty or rejected her revision petition. Hence, the grounds made out in ground 5(b) do not show any mitigating factor for the applicant.
20. In paragraph 5(c),the applicant submits that apart from performing the duties of BPM, she was also attached the work of mail delivery to6 village and also attend exchange of mails. Due to heavy pressure of work there may be some negligence/lapses on her part. The applicant had not done any mistake intentionally, to defraud the depositors amount.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 13 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Clearly, in the case of misappropriation, whether someone had heavy work, additional work or pressure of work, cannot be a defence. Hence, the grounds made out do not substantiate the case of the applicant.
21. In paragraph 5(d), the applicant submits that the mail over seer, had misguided the applicant and made to write statements as that she used the money for personal use, which is not a fact.
The applicant is an important functionary and she handles public money. She cannot allege this type of baseless allegation and make a plea that she was misguided by others to say that she used the money for personal use. The said fact doesn't support the case of the applicant in any way. Hence, this ground is also rejected
22. In paragraph 5(e). the applicant submits that she is the elder daughter of a poor family, and her father is working as an agriculture coolie and her sisters are depending on her for studies. The punishment of removal is an economic death sentence not only for the applicant but to the entire family.
Poverty, family circumstances and dependence of family members are not an acceptable defence in a proven case of SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 14 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE misappropriation. Hence, the ground made out in this paragraph is not relevant.
23. In paragraph 5(f), the applicant submits that the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged in the charge memo and disciplinary authority and revisionary authority, failed to take cognizance of her entire service record of applicant and removed her based on isolated mistakes/lapses. Therefore the punishment of removal from service is arbitrary, and illegal. Hence the O.A. At the time of final argument also, the main thrust of the applicant's argument was that the punishment of removal was disproportionate to the mistake alleged in the charge memorandum and the disciplinary authority and revisionary authority failed to take cognizance of her entire service record and removed her from service based on isolated mistakes/lapses.
But we have seen in detail the charge memorandum and there are five independent instances of misappropriations listed in the Articles of charge, which show a clear pattern of defalcation. And these are only some of the sampled examples which have been brought before within the fold of the disciplinary proceedings. Hence, it cannot be said that the applicant is in any way innocent in the case of proven SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 15 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE misappropriation. That also, in multiple transactions of misappropriation at different occasions, cannot be taken lightly by any department as it affects the credibility of the department. When the applicant was in an important position at the cutting edge dealing with the money of the poor illiterate villagers. She has dishonestly either withdrawn money from their account without their knowledge or has not credited the money entrusted to her by the account holder in their account. Hence, these five charges collectively and specifically make a serious charge of misappropriation and misconduct against the applicant.
24. We have also seen the case of one Kabbar Siddappa GT.Katte Govinahalu who died on 25.10.2019 and from his SB account on 21.2.2020 Rs.800/- was withdrawn after his death. Although the applicant says that it was during the covid period when it was not known whether the said person was still surviving or not and the fact was not verifiable. But these types of frivolous defence cannot in any way mitigate the misconduct or misappropriation by the applicant which are serious enough to require a deterrent punishment like removal from service.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 16 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
25. The respondents, in their reply statement, have placed before us the details of money transactions and other documents which support various misappropriation of money transactions by the applicant. As the applicant has not filed any rejoinder and controverted any of them, there is no ground to disbelieve what the respondents have said.
26. The respondents have cited the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5984 of 2000 decided on 11.2.2003 in the case of Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C, Etawah & Ors. v. Hoti lal and Anr. [(2003) 3 SCC 605] wherein inter-alia other things, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed the following:
" It needs to be emphasized that the Court or Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment does not commensurate with the proved charges. As has been highlighted in several cases to which reference has been made above, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases in the indicated circumstances. Unfortunately, in the present case as the quoted extracts of the High Court's order would go to show, no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. (See Alexander Machinery Dudley Ltd. v. Crabtree SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 17 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE (1974 LCR 120) A mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. A party appearing before a Court, as to what it is that the Court is addressing its mind. It is not only the amount involved but the mental set up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision-making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. 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 trust-worthiness is must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We set aside the same and restore order of learned Single Judge upholding order of dismissal.
The appeal is allowed."
Simple reading of the above shows that the Hon'ble Apex Court, emphatically said that 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 trust- worthiness is must and unexceptionable.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 18 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
27. In the present case also, we observe that the applicant was in a post where she had to deal with the money of the depositors, either withdrawing without the knowledge of depositors or non-crediting to the accounts of the depositors who are poor or illiterate or with less knowledge. In such cases, the responsibility of officials becomes much more important and their misappropriation and misconduct become graver. Hence, this case is graver than the said citation. We do not find anything disproportionate in the imposed penalty of removal.
28. Further the respondents have cited our co-ordinate bench decision dated 12.2.2024 in O.A No.121/2022 of C.A.T Bangalore Bench wherein inter-alia other things, various citations have been mentioned as follows:
"11. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. ((1995) 6 SCC 749), a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court has held that power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the court. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. It was held as under:
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 19 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eve of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of Jfact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent Jfindings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co- extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718], this Court held at page 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 20 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
12. The Apex Court in the case of State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Chitra Venkata Rao on 29 August, 1975 (1975 AIR 2151, 1976 SCR (1) 521) has observed as follows:
"21. The scope of Article 226 in dealing with departmental inquiries has come up before this Court. Two propositions were laid down by this Court in State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao. First, there is no warrant for the view that in considering whether a public officer is guilty of misconduct charged against him, the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court must be applied. If that rule be not applied by a domestic tribunal of inquiry the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not a court of appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 21 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. The departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226.
13. The Honourable Apex Court in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 on 19 November, 2014 had observed as follows:
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 22 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
a) re-appreciate the evidence;
b) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
c) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
d) go into the reliability of the evidence;
e) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based
f) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
g) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
14. In the present case, the enquiry has been held by a Competent Authority, according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings. The Disciplinary Authority has come to the conclusion based upon the available documentary evidence, that the applicant had indeed been guilty and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty while handling the deposits made by various depositors in the Post Office. The appeal filed against the penalty order passed by the Disciplinary SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 23 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Authority has been duly considered and then upheld by the Appellate Authority, through a detailed speaking order.
15. The charges proved against the applicant are certainly grave since they indicate a lack of integrity which is crucial to the functioning of the Postal Department. The action of the applicant betrays the trust imposed on him both by the Postal Department as well as by the public, as a public functionary, while handing money which is the property of the depositors. The penalty of dismissal from engagement imposed on the applicant cannot be considered as shockingly disproportionate given the facts and circumstances of the case.
16. Keeping the above points in view, the OA lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
17. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs."
29. A simple reading of the above and comparing the same with the case in hand shows that in the present O.A also the charges are accepted by the applicant and as all the charges proved are certainly grave, since they indicate a lack of financial integrity. It is crucial to the functioning of the postal department. The actions of the applicant in multiple cases also show clear misappropriation and misconduct of hers towards the employer as well as towards the general public who are mostly poor and illiterate villagers. SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 24 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
30. As a public functionary while handling money which is the property of the depositors misappropriating the same certainly requires a deterrent punishment. Hence, in our considered opinion the penalty imposed on the applicant cannot be considered as shocking and disproportionate in the facts and circumstances of the case.
31. We also find that the inquiry has been held according to the rules and procedures prescribed and there is no violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings, as the applicant has voluntarily agreed to the charges, and rightly the disciplinary authority has come to a conclusion based on the available documentary evidence and other submissions by the applicant. The revision petition filed against the penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority has also been duly considered by the Revisional Authority by examining the submissions of the applicant and scrutinising the records, and the said authority has upheld the order by the Disciplinary Authority through a detailed speaking order. Both the orders impugned, we have seen, and we are of the considered opinion that they both are speaking orders and have been passed after giving opportunity to the applicant and complying with the rules of procedures. Hence, there is no merit in the case of the applicant.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:40:47+05'30' 25 O.A.Nos.170/237/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
32. Hence, we pass the following orders:
The Original Application is dismissed. Accordingly pending M.As, if any, are also disposed of . No costs.
Sd/- sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE B.K.SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/SV/
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU
CAT Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.07
17:40:47+05'30'