Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Mantesh N Bidaralli vs Department Of Posts on 18 November, 2025
1
OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00068/2025
ORDER RESERVED ON: 11.11.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 18.11.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA ..MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA ..MEMBER(A)
Mantesh N. Bidaralli,
S/o Sri. Nagappa Bidaralli,
Aged 34 years, working as
GDS BPM, Kabbenur BO,
a/w Amminbhavi SO-581 201,
Residing at Sgambhyapur,
Kallaghattagi Taluk,
Dharwad Division-580 008. .....Applicant
(By Advocate, Shri A.R. Holla)
Vs.
1. Union of India represented by
By Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001.
2. Postmaster General,
N.K. Region,
Dharwad-580 001.
3. Director of Postal Services,
O/o Postmaster General,
N.K. Region,
mikash mikasha
suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.24
suneja 18:02:06
+05'30'
2
OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
Dharwad-580 001.
4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Dharwad Division,
Dharwad-580 008. ....Respondents
(By Shri H R Sreedhara, Additional Central
Govt. Standing Counsel)
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Santosh Mehra ...........Member(A)
Through this OA, the applicant has sought for the following reliefs:
"(i) To quash the (a) Memo No. DWD/F/IV/1/2021 dated at Dharwad the 12.10.2022, issued by the respondent No.4, Annexure-A5, (b) Memo No. NKR/VIG/APPEAL/069/2023 dated at Dharwad, the 27.07.2023, issued by the respondent No.3, Annexure-A9 and (c) Memo No. NKR/VIG/PET/816/2024 dated at Dharwad, the 08.05.2024 issued by the respondent No2, Annexure-A11,
(ii) Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant with full back salary and continuity of service treating the intervening period of absence from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement as on duty, with all consequential benefits and
(iii) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows:
While working as GDS BPM, Kabbenur BO, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant under Rule 10 B of Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020 for three articles of charges. The Articles of charges indicated not opening the accounts of three individuals from whom the mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.24 suneja 18:02:06 +05'30' 3 OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE applicant had accepted Rs.20,000, Rs.10,000 and Rs.10,000 respectively.
These acts of the applicant were in contravention of the provisions of Rule-21 and Rules 133(2) and 134(4) of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020 in terms of the Memorandum dated 24.03.2022.
An inquiry was conducted in the matter in which all the three charges were held to be proved primarily because of the acceptance of the guilt by the applicant himself. Based on the inquiry proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of Removal from Engagement which shall not be a disqualification for future engagement on the applicant. The representations of the applicant to higher authorities was also rejected. Hence, the applicant has moved this Tribunal for relief through this OA.
3 (i).The Counsel for the Applicant states that essentially all the three transactions (two of Rs.10,000 each and one of Rs.20,000) were private transactions between the three individuals and the applicant and hence were beyond the purview of the respondents. There is nothing on record nor any documentary evidence to indicate that the above mentioned amounts were accepted by the Applicant for opening TD accounts.
(ii) According to the Counsel for Applicant, it is important to note that all the three amounts were returned by him to the three individuals which clearly indicate that these were purely private transactions. Thus, the respondents have no grounds to intervene in this matter and these transactions cannot be considered as misconduct or violation of Rule 133(2) and Rules mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.24 suneja 18:02:06 +05'30' 4 OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE 134(4) of Rules for Branch Offices. He also points out that not even one complaint has been received from any of the above mentioned individuals and in their statements they have clearly stated that the amounts they had given to the applicant were duly returned to them in May 2021. Furthermore, in their statements, they have not mentioned that they had submitted any duly filed application forms for opening the accounts. Hence, the applicant was under no obligation to open deposit accounts. The Learned Counsel for Applicant sums up by pointing out that the Inquiring Authority drew his conclusions simply on the basis of allegedly confessional statements of the applicant which is baseless. No proper inquiry was conducted nor any detailed examination or cross examination was done in presence of the applicant, which vitiates the entire inquiry. In this regard the Counsel for the Applicant has drawn our attention to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr. in SLP(civil) No. 29758 of 2018 dated 18.11.2024 in which it was held:
"11. Rule 7 (vii)2 of the Rules of 1999, clearly stipulates that where a Government servant denies the charge, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witness proposed in the charge sheet and record their oral evidence in the presence of the charged Government servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such witness. After recording the aforesaid evidence, the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged Government servant desires in his written statement to be produced in his defence. Hence, recording of oral evidence in support of charges against Government servant is a mandate under of Sub-rule mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.24 suneja 18:02:06 +05'30' 5 OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
(vii) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, when the inquiry being conducted proposes imposition of a major penalty.
12. Learned Counsel for the State was ad idem to the submissions of the appellant's Counsel that no witness whatsoever was examined during the course of the inquiry proceedings. On a minute appraisal of the Inquiry Report, it is evident that other than referring to the documents pursuant to the so-called irregular transactions constituting the basis of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer failed to record the evidence of even a single witness in order to establish the charges against the appellant.
13. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory."
He has also invited our attention to the judgment of the Principal Bench of CAT in Rajesh Vashist v. Union of India & Ors in O.A. No. 2276 of 2015 dated 11.09.2023 in which he has cited the following Paras.
"21. Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules prescribes the procedure for imposing penalties. Proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 says that no order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 shall be made except after an inquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner provided in this rule and Rule 15 or in the manner provided by the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 where such inquiry is held under that Act.
27. In the present case, the charge sheet dated 13.07.2009 alleged applicant's complicity in three major charges. It can be seen that in all the three charges no witness was examined and just on the basis of that, earlier the applicant had been arrested based on an FIR in which incidentally his name did not figure, the charge of misconduct was proved. Coming now to the second aspect whether procedure was properly followed in conducting the departmental inquiry, we have already pointed out serious errors of non-examination of any witnesses and not proving of documents. Also we fail to understand that why for a case pertaining 2005 a charge memo would be issued on 13.07.2009 i.e. after a gap of almost four years. No plausible explanation for this, delay has been provided."
mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.24 suneja 18:02:06 +05'30' 6 OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
(iv) The Counsel for the Applicant concludes by stating that the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority, and the Reviewing Authority have not applied their minds to the facts of the case and have passed the orders and upheld the orders of punishment in a mechanical manner which are not borne by the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence he has asked for the impugned orders to be set aside and direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant from the date of removal with consequential benefits.
4. The Counsel for the Respondents has filed the reply.
(i) Counsel for the Respondents submits that the applicant, while working as BPM Hebballi BO in account with Morab SO under Dharwad division between 02.06.2016 to 19.12.2021, accepted certain amounts from the villagers for opening of new accounts and utilised the same to meet his personal needs without actually processing for opening of new accounts, and he returned the amounts to the respective customers later.
(ii) It was reported to R-4 by ASP, Hubballi East Sub Division vide his letter no. ASP (E)/PWV/HBL BO/2021 13.03.2021 that he had received oral complaints from the public that the Branch Post Master (applicant) had not given Pass books in respect of new accounts opened by some of the customers. According to him, the applicant had accepted cash to the tune of Rs:2,31,530/- approximately from the public for opening of new accounts, retained the same with him and utilized the collected amount for his personal needs and failed to mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.24 suneja 18:02:06 +05'30' 7 OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE open the accounts. He returned the amount to the customers later without opening new accounts.
(iii) The Respondent stated that the applicant had accepted an amount of Rs:20,000/- during December 2020, returned the same to the customers on 02.05.2021, Rs.10,000 during November 2020, returned the same to the customer on 01.05.2021, Rs.10,000 during November 2020, returned the same to the customer on 09.05.2021.
(iv) The applicant was proceeded under Rule-10B of Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules. 2020 vide Senior Superintendent of Post offices, Dharwad Division, Respondent-4 Memo No. DWD/F/IV/2/2021 dated 24.03.2022 (Annexure-A1) for alleged misappropriation of public money and utilisation of the same for personal purposes. The Preliminary Hearing in the case was held on 22.07.2022 vide Daily order sheet no.01 dated 22.07.2022 (Annexure-A2). The applicant admitted all the charges levelled against him during the preliminary hearing itself, held on 22.07.2022 and submitted a letter of confession dated 22.07.2022 (Copy of the same is submitted as Annexure- R-5). The Inquiry officer submitted his report dated 22.07.2022 (Annexure-A3) to the Disciplinary Authority, the Respondent no.4 holding all the articles of charge as proved. The applicant was asked to submit his representation or written statement within 15 days by Respondent no.4 vide his letter no. DWD/F/IV/1/2021 dated 18.08.2022 (Annexure-A4) enclosing a copy of report of Inquiry officer dated 22.07.2022. The applicant did not submit his mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.24 suneja 18:02:06 +05'30' 8 OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE representation or written statement of defence on the IO report to the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, the final proceedings were issued by the Respondent no.4 imposing a penalty of Removal from Engagement which shall not be a disqualification for future engagement with immediate effect vide Memo No. DWD/F/IV/2/2021 dated 12.10.2022 (Annexure-A5).
(v) The applicant preferred an appeal vide his letter dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure-A6) based on which the applicant was provided with an opportunity of Personal Hearing vide Memo No. NKR/VIG/APPEAL/069/2023 dated 22.06.2023 (Annexure-A7). The applicant attended Personal Hearing on 04.07.2023 at the office of the CPMG, Karnataka Circle, Bengaluru (Annexure- A8). Appeal of the applicant was rejected vide Memo No. NKR/VIG/APPEAL/069/2023 dated 27.07.2023.
(vi) The applicant submitted petition dated 01.03.2024 (Annexure-A10) to the Revision Authority R-2 requesting to take him back to duty and to provide an opportunity for a Personal Hearing. The petition was rejected by the Respondent no.2 vide Memo No. NKR/VIG/PET/816/2024 dated 08.05.2024 after due consideration.
(vii) The Learned Counsel for Respondent submits that misusing the hard earned money of the innocent rural People, the applicant had breached the trust reposed by the public in the department. All reasonable opportunities were given to the applicant to defend his case and all provisions/rules were followed scrupulously. There was no denial of natural justice in this case. Applicant mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.24 suneja 18:02:06 +05'30' 9 OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE himself has admitted the charges levelled against him in the Preliminary Hearing held by the Inquiry officer on 22.07.2022. As such, disciplinary authority, after considering all the relevant records, had imposed the penalty of removal from engagement. Since the applicant has been proved guilty in an inquiry conducted by the respondents in a quasi-judicial procedure, the action of applicant in challenging the same is not correct.
(viii) Responding to the contention of Learned Counsel of Applicant, the Learned Counsel for Respondent points out that the Applicant during the course of Preliminary Hearing had submitted a letter of confession (Annexure-R5) in which he had admitted all charges and requested to stop the inquiry. Still, the applicant was given an opportunity to defend himself and he was informed vide Annexure-A4 dt. 18.08.2022 that if no representation was received within 15 days, the case will be finalized ex-parte. Since the Charged GDS (applicant) did not submit his reply /representation in response to Annexure-A4, the Respondent-4 issued Final proceedings vide Memo No DWD/F/IV/1/2021 dated 12.10.2022 (Annexure-A5) imposing a penalty of Removal from Engagement. The applicant preferred an appeal vide his letter dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure-A6) to R-3 against the order of Removal from Engagement with a request for reinstatement and to provide an opportunity of Personal Hearing. The applicant was duly provided with an opportunity for Personal Hearing vide Memo No. NKR/VIG/APPEAL/069/2023 dated 22.06.2023 (Annexure-A7), which he attended on 04.07.2023. During the Personal Hearing, before the mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.24 suneja 18:02:06 +05'30' 10 OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Appellate Authority, the applicant had again admitted that he had accepted amounts from the public during December-2020 for opening of TD accounts as alleged in the Memo of Charges (Annexure-A4), kept the amount with him till May-2021 and utilized the said amount. Appeal of the applicant was rejected vide Memo No. NKR/VIG/APPEAL/069/2023 dated 27.07.2023 (Annexure- A9) after detailed deliberations on the ground that the appeal lacked substance and was devoid of merit. Thereafter the applicant submitted petition dated 01.03.2024 (Annexure-A10) to R-2, the Postmaster Generai, NK Region, Dharwad, requesting to take him back on duty and to provide an opportunity of Personal Hearing. The petition was rejected by the Respondent no.2 vide Memo No. NKR/VIG/PET/816/2024 dated 08.05.2024 after detailed consideration.
(ix) The Learned Counsel for Respondent states that the Contention of the LCA applicant that the Disciplinary proceedings initiated against him was beyond the purview of the authorities of the Department of Posts, was not correct. He points out that the applicant had mis-appropriated the money of poor, innocent villagers of Hebballi which was given to him for opening of accounts in Hebballi branch Post office. The applicant had also accepted the same vide his written statement (Annexure R-7) dated 23.11.2021 given before Assistant Superintendent of Post offices, Hubballi East Sub Division that he retained the amount with him without opening the account and utilised the same for his personal needs due to his father's illness and returned the amount to the customers on 02.05.2021. As poor innocent villagers may not be aware of the mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.24 suneja 18:02:06 +05'30' 11 OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE documents to be submitted to the Post Office while opening an account, being a Branch Postmaster, it was his bounden duty to give them account opening forms, get them filled up, along with the amounts from the customer for opening of new accounts.
(x) Refuting the contention of the Learned Counsel for Applicant that there were no written complaints from the customers against the applicant, the learned Counsel for Respondent points out that all the three customers of the Post office had given written statements dated 23.11.2021, before Assistant Superintendent of Posts Hubballi East Sub Division explaining the fact that they had given amount to the applicant for opening of accounts, but no accounts were opened and the amount was returned to them later. He also points out that the applicant had also accepted these facts in his first written statement dated 16.08.2021 with respect to the customers and subsequent statements.
(xi) In this regard, the learned Counsel for Respondent draws attention to the written confessional statements of the applicant submitted vide Annexures R-2, R-5 R-7, R-8, R-11 which are self-explanatory.
5. We have given thoughtful consideration to the averments and arguments of the learned Counsel for the applicant and the respondents. We have also carefully gone through all the documents and records including the judgments of the Superior Courts, relevant sections and clauses of the departmental rules etc. which were brought on record by the respective Counsels.
mikash mikasha
suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.24
suneja 18:02:06
+05'30'
12
OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
6. It would be beneficial to go through the various letters of admission of guilt, submitted by the applicant which are produced as below:
Annexure R-2 dated 16.08.2021 is extracted as follows:
"Statement of Shri Mantesh N Bidralli, BPM, Hebballi BO dated 16.08.2021 in c/w payment of amount taken from various persons for post office transaction during Mar 2021 month given before ASPOS, Hubballi East Sub Dn.
I, Shri Mantesh N Bidralli, working as BPM in Hebballi BO since four years, Age: 30 years.
In connection with the subject cited above some people have given money to open new accounts, but I had used that money for personal use and did not open the accounts. I am giving the statement as below:
It is true that I have taken nearly Rs.2,31,530/- amount from various people of Hebballi village. This came to notice when ASP came for verification. I have taken amount of Rs.2,31,530 from 46 different people (list enclosed) and returned back the money to them. It is true that I had utilised the money for personal use and cheated the department. I have returned the entire amount received from the respective persons to open new accounts, which is a big mistake.
Place: Hebballi Yours Sincerely,
Date: 16.08.2021 (M N Bidaralli)
BPM, Hebballi
Before me
-Sd-
ASPOs
Hubballi East Sub Dn
HUBBALLI-580020"
7. Annexure-R 5 with regard to the above charges, confession of the applicant vide letter dt 22.07.2022 during the course of Preliminary Hearing is as follows:
mikash mikasha
suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.24
suneja 18:02:06
+05'30'
13
OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
"From
Mantesh N Bidralli,
Branch Postmaster,
Kabbenur,
a/w Amminbhavi.
To,
D M Sharanappa,
Inquiry Officer (IO),
ASP, Hubballi West Sub Dn,
Hubballi.
Subject: Letter regarding acceptance of all charges (charge sheet) levelled against.
Ref : No. DWD/F/IV/2/2021 Dated at Dharwad 24.03.2022 Sir, With reference to the subject cited above, I, Shri Mantesh N Bidralli, would like to present you that I had received memo no.DWD/F/IV/2/2021 dated at Dharwad the 24.03.2022. I had also received one registered letter no.RK605852854IN on 28.03.2022. In addition, I had received one memo no.ASP/HUBBALLI(W)IO/MNB/Kabbenur/Dlgs/2022 dated at Hubballi the 07.07.2022 through register post on 11.07.2022. Accordingly, I an attending the preliminary hearing held in Amminbhavi. On this day, I am shown the acknowledgement received from SSPOs and also acknowledgement received from ASPOs. I agree that the signature on the acknowledgement is of mine.
I have read all the charges levelled in the Memo No.DWD/F/IV/2/2021 dated at Dharwad the 24.03.2022. Today again, during inquiry the contents of the memo were read over to me and explained me in Kannada all the charges from 1 to 3. I have understood all the charges in the memo. I was asked to state as to whether I will admit the allegations made in the memo or deny the mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.24 suneja 18:02:06 +05'30' 14 OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE charges. And also told that I can appoint any defence assistant to defend the case.
I have read and understood all the charges i.e., Article-1, Article-2 and Article-3 voluntary and unconditionally admit all the charges levelled in the SSPOs memo no.DWD/F/IV/2/2021 dated at Dharwad the 24.03.2022. I request to stop the inquiry here only and that I admit all the charges levelled against me.
Date: 22.07.2022 Yours Sincerely,
Place : Amminbhavi (Mantesh N Bidralli)
BPM, Hebballi
Before me
-Sd-
ASPOs
Hubballi West Sub Dn
HUBBALLI-580020"
8. Annexure- R 7 dated 23.11.2021 is extracted as follows:
"Statement dated 23.11.2021 given by Shri Mantesh Bidralli, BPM, Hebballi BO in c/w utilization of amount of Rs.20,000/- given by Smt Siddamma Haveri, r/o Hebballi BO given before ASPOs, Hubli(E) Sub Dn, Hubballi-20.
I, Shri Mantesh Bidralli, BPM, Hebballi BO working as BPM, age: 30 years. In connection with above subject I am giving my statement as below:
Smt Siddamma Y Haveri had given an amount of Rs.20,000/- to open TD account in December 2020. I had received the amount and kept with me. Due to my father's ill health I could not open the account and I returned the amount to Smt Siddamma Y Haveri on 02.05.2021. It is true that I had kept the money with me. When Inquiry officer from Hubballi came to know the fact I admitted in my statement that I had not opened any new account and utilised the money for my personal use which is a big mistake.
Date: 23.11.2021 Yours,
mikash mikasha
suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.24
suneja 18:02:06
+05'30'
15
OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
Place: Hebballi (ManteshN Bidralli)
BPM, Hebballi
Before me
-Sd-
ASPOs
Hubballi East Sub Dn
HUBBALLI-580020"
9. Annexure- R 8 dated 23.11.2021 is extracted as follows:
"Statement dated 23.11.2021 given by Shri Mantesh Bidralli, BPM, Hebballi BO in connection of utilization of Rs.10,000/- given by Smt Puja C Byahatti r/o Hebballi village given before ASPOS, Hubli(E) Sub Dn, Hubballi-20.
I, Shri Mantesh N Bidralli, BPM, Hebballi BO working as BPM, age: 30 years. In connection with above subject I am giving my statement as below:
Smt Puja C Byahatti r/o Hebballi village had given an amount of Rs.10,000/- to open 5 years TD account in November 2020 which is true. I had received the amount and kept with me. Due to my father's ill health I could not open the account and I returned the amount to Smt Puja C Byahatti on 02.05.2021. It is true that I had kept the money with me. When Inquiry officer from Hubballi came to know the fact I admitted in my statement that I had not opened any new account and utilised the money for my personal use which is a big mistake.
Date: 23.11.2021 Yours Sincerely,
Place: Hebballi (ManteshN Bidralli)
BPM, Hebballi
Before me
-Sd-
ASPOs
Hubballi East Sub Dn
HUBBALLI-580020"
10. Annexure-R 11 dated 23.11.2021 is extracted as follows:
mikash mikasha
suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.24
suneja 18:02:06
+05'30'
16
OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
"Statement dated 23.11.2021 given by Shri Mantesh Bidralli, BPM, Hebballi BO in connection of utilization of Rs.10,000/- given by Smt Nilavva V Sadar r/o Hebballi BO given before ASPOs, Hubli(E) Sub Dn, Hubballi-20.
I Shri Mantesh N Bidralli, BPM, Hebballi BO working as BPM, age: 30 years. In connection with above subject I am giving my statement as below:
Smt Nilavva V Sadar r/o Hebballi village had given an amount of Rs.10,000/- to open 3 years TD account in December 2020 which is true. I had received the amount and kept with me. Due to my father's ill health I could not open the account and I returned the amount to Smt Nilavva V Sadar on 10.05.2021. It is true that I had kept the money with me. When Inquiry officer from Hubballi came to know the fact I admitted in my statement that I had not opened any new account and utilised the money for my personal use which is a big mistake.
Date: 23.11.2021 Yours Sincerely
Place: Hebballi (Mantesh N Bidralli)
BPM Hebballi
Before me
-Sd-
ASPOs
Hubballi East Sub Dn
HUBBALLI-580020"
From the above written statements of the applicant, it is clearly established that the applicant had admitted commission of all the three charges.
11. Furthermore, regard the contention of the learned Counsel for Respondent that no complaints were received, it would be useful to go through the following letters:
Annexure-R 6 dated 23.11.2021 is extracted as follows:
mikash mikasha
suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.24
suneja 18:02:06
+05'30'
17
OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
Statement dated 23.11.2021 given by Smt Siddamma Haveri r/o Hebballi village regarding non-opening of account by BPM, Hebballi BO before ASPOs, Hubli (E) Sub Dn, Hubballi-20.
I, Smt Siddamma Haveri r/o Hebballi village, age: 42 years. In connection with above subject I am giving my statement as below:
I have given Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) to open 1 year TD account to Shri Mantesh Bidralli in December 2020 at Hebballi BO. But the BPM has returned the amount on 02.05.2021 without opening new account. I do not know the reason for not opening the account.
Date: 23.11.2021 Yours Sincerely,
Place: Hebballi -LHTI-
(Siddamma Haveri)
23.11.2021
Written by
-Sd_
J A Rajput
Before me
-Sd-
ASPOs
Hubballi East Sub Dn
Hubballi-580020"
12. Annexure-R 9 dated 23.11.2021 is extracted as follows:
"Statement dated 23.11.2021 given by Smt Puja C Byahatti r/o Hebballi village regarding payment of Rs.10,000/- by Mantesh Bidralli before ASPOs, Hubli (E) Sub Dn, Hubballi-20.
I, Smt Puja C Byahatti r/o Hebballi village, age: 45 years. In connection with above subject I am giving my statement as below:
I have given Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to open 5 years TD account to Shri Mantesh Bidralli in November 2020 at Hebballi BO, which is true. But the BPM has returned an amount of Rs.10,000/-on 02.05.220 without opening new account. I have received the amount back.
mikash mikasha
suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.24
suneja 18:02:06
+05'30'
18
OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
Yours sincerely,
Sd-
(Puja C Byahatti)
23.11.2021
Before me
-Sd-
ASPOs
Hubballi East Sub Dn
HUBBALLI-580020"
13. Annexure-R 10 dated 23.11.2021 is extracted as follows:
"Statement dated 23.11.2021 given by Smt Nilavva Sadar r/o Hebballi regarding non-opening of TD new account by BPM, Hebballi BO before ASPOs, Hubli(E) Sub Dn, Hubballi-20.
I Nilavva Sadar r/o Kamat Oni, Hebballi village, age: 35 years. In connection with above subject I am giving my statement as below:
I have given Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to open 3 years TD account to Shri Mantesh Bidralli in December 2020 at Hebballi BO, which is true. But the BPM has returned an amount of Rs.10,000/-on 10.05.2021 without opening new account. I have received the amount back voluntarily.
Date: 23.11.2021 Yours Sincerely
Place: Hebballi (Nilavva B Sadar)
Before me
-Sd-
ASPOs
Hubballi East Sub Dn
HUBBALLI-580020"
14. The contentions of the Counsel for the applicant that the transactions indicated in Article-I, II and III were purely personal transactions, are totally mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.24 suneja 18:02:06 +05'30' 19 OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE untenable and far-fetched. There is enough evidence on record, both oral and documentary, as seen in the report of the Inquiry Authority (Annexure-A3) which clearly prove the charges. Furthermore, absence of specific complaints cannot be considered as a ground for initiation of inquiry or for proving the charges against the applicant. In large number of cases, irregularities/ frauds and misappropriations are detected during the course of audit and inspections as prescribed by the concerned department. The conclusions drawn in the inquiry report and the detailed proceedings issued by the Appellate and Revision Authorities, clearly addressing every contention of the applicant, do not leave any doubt regarding the decision taken by the respondents. The inquiry was conducted strictly as per the laid down procedure and the principle of natural justice were fully followed. Though the applicant had categorically admitted to all articles of charges and had requested for stoppage of inquiry at the stage of Preliminary Inquiry itself. He was also subsequently given full opportunity to defend himself and proper procedure was followed.
15. Furthermore, there are a catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts which indicate that the Courts and Tribunals can interfere in Disciplinary Proceedings in very limited situations and circumstances. In brief, the Situations in which Courts can interfere in departmental proceedings are delineated below:
"A. Violation of Natural Justice:
If the principles of natural justice, such as the right to a fair hearing or the right to cross-examine witnesses, are violated, the court may intervene.
mikash mikasha
suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.24
suneja 18:02:06
+05'30'
20
OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
B. Violation of Statutory Regulations:
If the departmental inquiry was conducted contrary to the prescribed statutory rules and regulations, the court can step in. C. Perverse or Arbitrary Findings:
If the findings of the disciplinary authority are found to be perverse, arbitrary, or not supported by any evidence, the court can interfere. D. Extraneous Considerations:
If the disciplinary authority's decision is based on considerations outside the scope of the evidence or the merits of the case, the court may intervene.
E. Disproportionate Punishment:
If the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct, the court may consider it a ground for interference, although courts are generally reluctant to substitute their own judgment on punishment. F. Lack of Jurisdiction or Bias:
If the disciplinary authority lacks the jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry or if there is a demonstrable bias against the delinquent employee, the court may intervene.
G. Violation of Statutory Rules:
If the disciplinary proceedings violate any specific statutory rules governing such proceedings, the court can interfere. H. No Evidence:
If the disciplinary authority's findings are not supported by any evidence, the court can intervene."
16. In this regard, for ease of convenience, relevant extract of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. P. mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.24 suneja 18:02:06 +05'30' 21 OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, in para nos. 12, 13, and 16 are cited below:
"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, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge 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 Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation 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; (2015) 2 SCC 610 (1977) 2 SCC 491 (2014) 4 SCC 108
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(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 Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.24 suneja 18:02:06 +05'30' 22 OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.
14............
15..............
16. These principles have been succinctly summed up by the living legend and centenarian V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. in State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh [(1977) 2 SCC 491: 1977 SCC (L&S) 298]. To quote the unparalleled and inimitable expressions: (SCC p. 493, para 4) in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor textbooks, although we have been taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good."
17. All the contentions and averments of the learned Counsel for applicant have been adequately addressed and answered by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Nothing has been brought on record by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the Disciplinary Proceedings which were conducted against the applicant, suffered from any of the infractions mentioned above. Further, mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.24 suneja 18:02:06 +05'30' 23 OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE the applicant had himself admitted his lapse in his written statement cited as Annexure R2, R5, R7, R8, R11.
18. (a) Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority (Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Dharwad Division, Dharwad) vide Memo No. DWD/F/IV/1/2021 dated 12.10.2022 passed the order of Removal from Engagement which shall not be a disqualification for future engagement with immediate effect, for the Applicant after due consideration of the inquiry report dated 22.07.2022.
(b) The Appellate Authority, having considered all the points put forth in the appeal dated 20.04.2023 of the applicant, issued a detailed and well- reasoned speaking order with cogent reasons for each of the grounds raised by the applicant and rejected the appeal vide Memo No. NKR/VIG/APPEAL/069/2023 dated 27.07.2023
(c) The Revision Authority after having considered the Revision Petition dated 01.03.2024, rejected the Revision Petition vide Memo No. NKR/VIG/PET/816/2024 dated 08.05.2024.
19. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Disciplinary Proceedings and the punishment imposed. Hence, the OA is liable to be dismissed.
20. The OA is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
mikash mikasha
suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.24
suneja 18:02:06
+05'30'
24
OA.No.170/068/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
kr
mikash mikasha
suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.24
suneja 18:02:06
+05'30'