Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
B R Vijayakumar vs Department Of Posts on 10 October, 2025
1 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
1CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/000443/2024
ORDER RESERVED : 17.09.2025
DATE OF ORDER : 10.10.2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI SHRIVASTAVA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MR.SANTOSH MEHRA ...MEMBER(A)
1. Shri B.R.Vijayakumar,
S/o Rangadhamaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
Ex-Postman, Huliyar PO,
A/W Tiptur HO,
Tumkur Division-572118.
Residing at: SLV Nilaya,
Opp to Taluk Office,
Vaddagere Road,
Koratagere Town -572129. ...Applicant
(By Advocate, Mr.Javarayi Gowda)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
By Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communication,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Karnataka Circle,
Bengaluru -560001.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.10.13
09:26:33+05'30'
2 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
3. The Postmaster General,
South Karnataka Region,
O/o CPMG Karnataka Circle,
Bengaluru-560001.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Tumkur Division,
Tumkur -572102. ...Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri Vishnu Bhat for Respondents No.1 to 4)
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.F/3-2/2014-15 dated at Tumkuru-02, the 17/20.03.2017, issued by the respondent No.4, Annexure-A3, (b) Memo No.S.K/STA/9-3/10/2017/1 dated at Bengaluru-560001, the 19.06.2017, issued by the respondent No.3, Annexure A4, (c) Memo No.Gig/15-21/2017 dated at Bengaluru-560001, the 19.07.2018, issued by the respondent No.2, Annexure-A5 and (d) memo No.C-17015/17/2023 dated at New Delhi 110001, the 05.04.2024, issued by the Respondent No.1, Annexure A7.
(ii) Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all the consequential benefits accordingly and
(iii) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case."
S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.10.13 09:26:33+05'30' 3 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows:
While the applicant was working as Postman Tumakuru Head Post office (HO) from 15.11.2007 to 25.08.2014, a complaint dated 24.07.2014 was received from Sri Abdul Jabbar, by the respondents regarding misappropriation of Government money by one Sri. H. Satheesh and the Applicant. Based on the same, the Respondent No.3 vide letter No. SK/VIG/10-12/2014 dated 20.08.2014, addressed Respondent No.4 to seize all the records immediately and to conduct past work verification in respect of all the Money orders paid by these two individuals. Respondent No. 4 formed a team to carry out the investigation into money order payment. As the investigation team found involvement of the Applicant in several fraudulent e-Money order payments, he was placed under suspension w.e.f.
25.08.2014.
3. The Respondent No. 4 issued Charge Memo under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA), Rules 1965 vide memo No. F/3-2/2014-15 dated 17.08.2015 on the applicant. His suspension was revoked by the Respondent No.4 vide memo no. F/3-2/2014-15 dated 15.09.2015. The Applicant vide his letter dated 10.01.2016 (Annexure R-12) addressed to the Respondent No.4 admitted the charges made against him and also stated that he has credited the amount and requested to stop the proceedings. The Respondent No.4 directed the S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.10.13 09:26:33+05'30' 4 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Applicant vide letter No. F/3-2/2014-15 dated 19/09/2016 to credit misappropriated and defrauded amount of Rs.1,58,200/- to the department accounts within seven days of receipt of the said notice. In response, the Applicant vide letter dated 03.10.2016-ANNEXURE R-4 informed Respondent No.4 that he has credited Rs.33,200/- in Gandhinagar Sub Post office on 03.10.2016. The Applicant vide Annexure-R4 also requested Respondent No.4 to deduct a sum of Rs.2,500/- in 50(fifty) instalments from his salary every month commencing from 31.10.2016 and requested to show clemency. The Respondent No.4 vide letter No. F/3-the 2/2014-15 dated 11.11.2016 told the Applicant that though the total defrauded amount was Rs.1,58,200/-, it was not possible to include each and every e-Money order of fraud in the charge sheet, and hence only 6 cases were selected for the charge sheet. He also requested the Applicant to give his consent to recover the amount @ Rs.10,000/- per month from his pay. Subsequently, Respondent No.4 vide letter No. F/3-2/2014-15 dated 01.12.2016 also addressed Postmaster, Tiptur Head office to recover Rs.5000/- per month from the salary of the Applicant as agreed to by the Applicant. A sum of Rs.20,000/- was recovered from the salary of the Applicant in instalments of Rs.5000/- per month from December, 2016 to March, 2017. A total of Rs.53,200/- was recovered from the applicant and an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- was still outstanding from the applicant.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.10.13
09:26:33+05'30'
5 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
4. As per the extant instructions, a criminal complaint was also lodged against the Applicant for carrying out fraudulent payment in 63 e-Money orders amounting to Rs.43,600/- vide FIR No. 0130/2016 dated 19.08.2016 at Tumkur Town Police station. Inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 was conducted to inquire into the charge levelled against the Applicant. The Inquiry officer submitted Inquiry report dated 27.02.2017 vide Annexure-A2. As per the Inquiry report all the six charges levelled against the Applicant were proved. The Disciplinary Authority i.e., the Respondent No.4 sent the Inquiry report to the Applicant vide Annexure R15 to submit his representation. The Respondent No.4 after going through all connected records related to the applicant's case and also the representation of the applicant dated 10.03.2017 vide Annexure A15 imposed the penalty of 'Removal from Service' with immediate effect vide memo dated 17/20.03.2017 (Annexure A3).
5. The applicant, submitted an Appeal vide letter dated 29.04.2017, to the Appellate Authority, who, after due consideration, rejected it vide Memo No.SK/STA/9-3/IO/2017/I dated 19.06.2017 (Annexure A4). Subsequently, the applicant gave a Revision Petition to the Chief Postmaster General vide letter dated 03.07.2017. The Revision Authority also rejected his representation and confirmed the order of Appellate Authority of Removal from Service vide Memo No.Vig/15-21/2017 dated 19.07.2018 (Annexure S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.10.13 09:26:33+05'30' 6 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH A5). Finally, the petitioner submitted a Review Petition to the Minister dated 11.10.2019, which was also rejected by the Competent Authority vide order dated 05.04.2024 (Annexure A7). Since, the Applicant failed to get relief from the Respondents at different levels, despite repeated representations, he has filed this OA.
6. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that while the applicant was working in the Postal Department as Postman, at Tumkur Head Post office, six articles of charges was framed against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, vide Memorandum dated 17.08.2015, related to payment of EMOS payable to the payees. The inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer in the absence of the Charged Official. Inspite of the request by the applicant to postpone the scheduled sittings of the inquiry on certain dates, on valid medical grounds, the same was not considered and the prosecution witnesses were examined and inquiry was concluded ex-parte.
7. The learned Counsel for applicant avers that during the inquiry, the prosecution documents were examined through the witnesses in the absence of the Applicant/Charged Official and Defence Assistant. Hence, reasonable opportunity was not given to the applicant to defend his case by cross examining the Prosecution Witnesses. The Inquiry Officer submitted S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.10.13 09:26:33+05'30' 7 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH his report dated 27.02.2017 holding that all the articles of charges were proved, which was in violation of all principles of natural justice. According to learned Counsel for applicant, the Respondent No.4 directed the applicant to remit Rs.33,200/- under the threat of police action and also false promise of imposing minimal penalty by the Disciplinary Authority. The applicant complied as directed by the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority ordered to recover Rs.125000/- from his pay @ Rs.5000/- per month for 25 months. There is absolutely no justification to collect such a huge amount from the applicant without the authority of law.
8. Elaborating on the violation of principles of natural justice and laid down procedures, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had applied for leave on medical ground from 20.06.2016 to 25.06.2016, which was even sanctioned by the concerned authority vide Annexure A12. Even though the same was brought to the notice of IO to postpone the sittings, the IO continued with the inquiry ex-parte and thus he was denied reasonable opportunity to defend his case, which is bad in law. Since the IO was not conducting the inquiry in accordance with law, the applicant filed a bias petition against the IO, but the said petition was rejected by the Appellate Authority. The applicant also submitted a letter to the Disciplinary Authority expressing his dissatisfaction on the inquiry conducted by the IO, but it was ignored.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.10.13
09:26:33+05'30'
8 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
9. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant pointed out that the applicant, based on false promise and coercion agreed to admit the charges and to credit an amount of Rs.33,200/- in cash and also requested to recover Rs.1,25,000/- from his pay @ of Rs.5000/- per month. However, while doing so, he had clearly mentioned in the letter that he had not admitted the charges before the IO (Annexure A15). He pointed out that the forwarding of Annexure A15 (which was a letter of admission of charges of applicant addressed to the Disciplinary Authority) to the Inquiry Authority was incorrect as this letter was referred to by the Inquiry Authority in his inquiry report for substantiating the charges. This was against the Rules of inquiry as only documents which were cited earlier as part of the inquiry, had to be relied upon by the Inquiry Officer to establish the charges.
10. Learned Counsel for applicant also highlighted that the Disciplinary Authority had imposed a lesser penalty on Shri H.Satisha (Annexure-A8), Shri.T.V.Mallikarjunaiah (Annexure-A9) and Sri. Sreevathsa A.L (Annexure-A10) despite similar circumstances and identical charges. Though, inquiry was conducted in all the cases, a lenient view was taken on the other officials and were allowed to continue in service, while the applicant has been imposed a harsh punishment of Removal from Service. This is clear discrimination, violation of Article S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.10.13 09:26:33+05'30' 9 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 14 of the Constitution of India and is contrary to the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3511/1998 decided on 20.02.2001 [State of Uttar Pradaesh and others vs. Raj Pal Singh].
11. The two judgments relied on by the Counsel for applicant are State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Rajpal Singh reported in (2010) 5 SCC 783 and Punjab and Sindh Bank vs. Rajkumar in LPA 410/2023 & CM APPL.53223/2024 dated 11.09.2024 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The relevant portions of the two judgments brought to our notice by the learned Counsel for applicant in support of his contention are as follows:
State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Rajpal Singh "2. Admittedly, the respondent was an Assistant Warder and the allegation against him was that he along with four other Assistant Warders beat one Shivdan Singh, and even though the senior officers dissuaded them, they never listened to that.
These allegations were proved in a departmental proceeding and the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal so far as the present respondent is concerned, though in respect of some others, he passed the order of stoppage of five increments. ...............................
5. Though, on principle, the ratio in aforesaid cases would ordinarily apply, but in the case in hand, the High Court appears S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.10.13 09:26:33+05'30' 10 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH to have considered the nature of charges leveled against the 5 employees who stood charged on account of the incident that happened on the same day and then the High Court came to the conclusion that since the gravity of charges was the same, it was not open for the disciplinary authority to impose different punishments for different delinquents. The reasonings given by the High Court cannot be faulted with since the State is not able to indicate as to any difference in the delinquency of these employees.
6. It is undoubtedly open for the disciplinary authority to deal with the delinquency and once charges are established, to award appropriate punishment. But when the charges are same and identical in relation to one and the same incident, then to deal with the delinquents differently in the award of punishment, would be discriminatory. In this view of the matter, we see no infirmity with the impugned order requiring our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution."
Punjab and Sindh Bank vs. Rajkumar "12. The moot point before the learned Single Judge was to examine whether the action of the appellant bank in awarding higher punishment to the respondent compared to co-delinquents amounted to discrimination and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the binding dictum of the Supreme Court that those equally placed and found guilty, must be treated equally, even while considering imposition of punishments.
...................................
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.10.13
09:26:33+05'30'
11 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
17. Learned counsel for the respondent before the learned Single Judge submitted that the penalty of dismissal was not only disproportionate but was in the teeth of the well settled principles of parity in awarding punishments to co-delinquents in an inquiry relating to the same incident and/or allegations of connivance. All the charges levelled in the charge-sheet pertained to acts of commission or omission in 'connivance' with the co-delinquents, Shri Gurjant Singh and Shri Sukhdev Singh, relating to the same transactions/incidents and yet there was a disparity in the punishments awarded to the said three.
.....................................................................
37. Coming back to the present case, in the light of guiding principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge has rightly found merit in the grievance ventilated by the respondent that he had not received fair treatment at the hands of the appellant Bank and while co- delinquents had been given lesser punishments, he had been awarded the harshest punishment in service jurisprudence.
38. Looking at the punishments awarded to the co-delinquents for same incidents/transactions and acts of connivance and testing the impugned action on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as LPA 410/2023 Page 17 of 18 pages well as keeping in mind the long and unblemished spell of service of the respondent, save and except, the learned Single Judge was inclined to convert the punishment from 'dismissal' to one of 'compulsory retirement."
12. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents has filed the reply. He submits that as per extant instructions, in cases involving fraud of public S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.10.13 09:26:33+05'30' 12 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH funds of Rs.5000/- or more, committed by departmental employees, police complaint has to be lodged against them. The Respondent No. 4 accordingly lodged criminal complaint against the Applicant for carrying out fraudulent payment in 63 e-Money orders amounting to Rs.43,600/- vide FIR No. 0130/2016 dated 19.08.2016, which was registered at Tumkur Town Police station. Though the Applicant, vide his letter dated 10.01.2016, (Annexure R-12) addressed to the Respondent No.4 admitted the charges made against him and credited the amount, inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 had to be and was conducted, as per the Rules. The Inquiry officer submitted Inquiry report dated 27.02.2017 vide Annexure-A2, in which all the six charges levelled against the Applicant were proved.
13. According to the learned Counsel for respondents, the Applicant has committed fraud to the tune of Rs.1,58,200/- but only Rs.53,200/- has been credited back by him. An amount of Rs.1,05,000/- was still outstanding from the Applicant as on date which is a loss to the Department. The Applicant's action had caused a great damage to the reputation of the Department of Posts and hence the action of the Respondent No.4 in imposing the penalty of Removal from service is based on the gravity of the offense committed by the Applicant.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.10.13
09:26:33+05'30'
13 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
14. Accepting that the three other Postmen were also issued memos of charges, the learned counsel for the respondents points out that the punishment imposed upon the delinquent officials by Respondent No.4 was based on the gravity of their offenses. The punishment was based on the investigation and past work verification of the Postmen officials involved in the fraudulent payment of e-Money orders in Tumakuru HPO. It was found that the Applicant had committed the fraudulent payment of e-Money orders to the tune of Rs.1,58,200/- The penalty imposed by Respondent No.4 against the officials referred by the Applicant in Annexure-A8 to Annexure- A10 were based on the gravity of the frauds committed by the respective postmen.
15. Learned Counsel further points out that the Applicant attended the inquiry on 04.11.2015; 04.12.2015; 04.03.2016; 05.03.2016; 10.08.2016; 19.09.2016; 20.09.2016 as per the Daily Order Sheet (Annexure-R14). There were 90 prosecution documents and 15 prosecution witnesses in support of the charge mentioned in Article-I, II, III, IV, V and VI of the Memo of charges. No defense documents and defense witnesses were furnished by the Applicant during the course of the Inquiry though ample opportunity was provided to the Applicant. All the prosecution documents were inspected by the Applicant in the sitting held on 04.12.2015 and marking of the documents was done. According to learned Counsel for Respondents, the Daily Order S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.10.13 09:26:33+05'30' 14 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Sheet No.02 makes it clear that the Applicant intentionally avoided the inquiry. The Inquiry officer had adequately considered the request of the Applicant to postpone the inquiry sittings. The Applicant had cross examined 06 (six) witnesses during the inquiry process. It is the Applicant who failed to defend the charges and prove his Innocence. Hence the contention of the Applicant is far from truth.
16. Learned Counsel for the respondents further avers that from the Daily Order Sheet Nos.5 & 6 of the inquiry proceedings, it is clear that the Applicant was submitting leave application along with medical certificates whenever inquiry sittings were scheduled by the inquiry officer. The applicant was availing leave at the last minute by sending medical certificates, thereby causing inconvenience to the witnesses, who were called for examination. Hence, prosecution witnesses were examined in the absence of the Applicant and his Defense Assistant. However, the copies of the Daily Order Sheets and deposition of the witnesses examined were being duly sent to the Applicant by the Inquiry officer. The Applicant chose not to utilize the opportunity provided to him to defend the charge levelled against him by cross examining the witnesses or by producing any defense documents or defense witnesses. There was no procedural lapse found in the conduct of the inquiry. The Applicant did not attend the inquiry proceedings even after directions from the Inquiry officer and also the Disciplinary S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.10.13 09:26:33+05'30' 15 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH authority i.e., Respondent No.4 vide Annexure-R7. It is the Applicant who addressed the Disciplinary Authority i.e., Respondent No.4 vide Annexure- R5 & Annexure R8 stating that he admits the charge levelled against him and he will not appear before the inquiry authority. The Applicant also requested Respondent No.4 to call off the Inquiry. Some of the prosecution witnesses were examined ex-parte in the Inquiry proceedings as the Applicant deliberately did not attend the inquiry proceedings. He concludes that in the light of these facts, the OA deserves to be quashed.
17. 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 Court, relevant sections and clauses of the rules etc., which were brought on record by the respective Counsels.
18. The chronological sequence of the disciplinary proceedings are as under:
1) Memorandum of articles of charges issued vide Memo dated 17.08.2015 - Annexure A1.
2) Inquiry concluded and Inquiry report submitted dated 27.02.2017 - Annexure A2.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.10.13
09:26:33+05'30'
16 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
3) Inquiry report given to the Applicant vide Letter No. F/3-2/2014-15 dated 06.03.2017 for submitting his representation - Annexure R15.
4) The Applicant submitted his representation dated 10.03.2017 vide Annexure A15.
5) Imposition of penalty on the applicant of Removal from Service by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 17/20.03.2017-Annexure A3.
6) Appeal dated 29.04.2017 submitted by the applicant to the Appellate Authority.
7) Appellate Authority's order dated 19.06.2017 rejecting the appeal submitted by the applicant - Annexure A4.
8) Revision Petition dated 03.07.3017 submitted by the applicant to the Revision Authority.
9) Revision Authority's order dated 19.07.2018 rejecting the revision petition submitted by the applicant - Annexure A5.
10) Review Petition under Rule 29(a) dated 11.10.2019 preferred by the applicant to Respondent No.1. - Annexure A6.
11) Respondent No.1 order dated 05.04.2024 rejecting the Review petition submitted by the applicant - Annexure A7.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.10.13
09:26:33+05'30'
17 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
19. Let us also examine the six Articles of Charges. The Articles of Charges are as under:
"ANNEXURE-I STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SRI B.R.VIJAYA KUMAR, POSTMAN (U/S), TUMKUR HO ARTICLE I That the said Sri. B.R.Vijaya Kumar while working as Postman, Tumkur HO, during the period from 15:11.2007 to 25.08.2014, has shown the eMO No. 050451131219015798 dated 19.12.2013 booked at Tumkur HO for Rs.100%/- payable to Smt. Shanthamma W/o Late Srinivas, Behind Shanidevara Temple, Govindanagar, Ring road, Kasaba, Tumkur-572101 as paid to the payee on 04.01.2014 even though the payee died on 18.10.2013, in violation of Rule 127(1), 127(3), 127(4) and 127(5) of Postal Manual Volume VI (Part III Sixth Edition) and thereby alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(1) (i) and 3(1) (ii) of CCS Conduct Rules 1964.
ARTICLE II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office the said Sri. B.R. Vijaya Kumar has shown the below mentioned eMOs booked at Tumkur HO as paid to the payee Sri. S.Jagan S/o Late Subramani, Labour colony, Kuripalya, Kasaba hobli, Tumkur-572101 after the death of the payee on 20.11.2012, in violation of Rule 127(1),127(3),127(4) and 127(5) of Postal Manual Volume VI (Part III Sixth Edition) and thereby alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(1) (i) and 3(1) (ii) of CCS Conduct Rules 1964.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.10.13
09:26:33+05'30'
18 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Name and eMO No. Office booking Date of booking Amount Date on
address of the
which eMOs
pay
shown as
paid to the
payees and
amount
charged to
S.Jagan S/o 050451130312738583 Tumkur HO 12.03.2013 400-00 18.03.2013
Late 050451130408759716 Tumkur HO 08.04.2013 400-00 20.04.2013
Subramani, 050451130509807506 Tumkur HO 09.05.2013 400-00 16.05.2013
Labour 050451130604825316 Tumkur HO 04.06.2013 400-00 11.06.2013
colony, 050451130912901574 Tumkur HO 12.09.2013 400-00 19.09.2013
Kuripalya, 050451131010940984 Tumkur HO 10.10.2013 500-00 18.10.2013
Kasaba hobli, 050451131116969553 Tumkur HO 16.11.2013 500-00 20.11.2013
Tumkur- 050451130705851338 Tumkur HO 05.07.2013 400-00 08.07.2013
572101 050451130807872571 Tumkur HO 07.08.2013 400-00 14.08.2013
ARTICLE III
That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office the said Sri. B.R.Vijaya Kumar has shown the below mentioned eMOs booked at Tumkur HO as paid to the payee Sri. Venkataramanappa S/o Thimaiah, Kuntammanathota, Tumkur-01 after the death of the payee on 01.12.2011, in violation of Rule 127(1), 127(3), 127(4) and 127(5) of Postal Manual Volume VI (Part III Sixth Edition) and thereby alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(1) (i) and 3(1) (ii) of CCS Conduct Rules 1964.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.10.13
09:26:33+05'30'
19 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Name and eMO No. Office booking Date of booking Amount Date on
address of the
which eMOs
pay
shown as
paid to the
payees and
amount
charged to
Venkataramana 050451130315745116 Tumkur HO 15.02.2013 500-00 16.03.2013
ppa S/o 050451130415771370 Tumkur HO 15.03.2013 500-00 22.03.2013
Thimaiah, 050451130509801508 Tumkur HO 15.04.2013 500-00 01.05.2013
Kuntammana 050451130604828700 Tumkur HO 09.05.2013 500-00 04.06.2013
thota, 050451130716855658 Tumkur HO 04.06.2013 500-00 14.06.2013
Tumkur-01 050451130215717249 Tumkur HO 16.07.2013 500-00 19.07.2013
050451130807884017 Tumkur HO 07.08.2013 500-00 20.08.2013
050451130914912921 Tumkur HO 14.09.2013 500-00 19.09.2013
050451131116977933 Tumkur HO 10.10.2013 500-00 22.10.2013
050451131116977933 Tumkur HO 16.11.2013 500-00 25.11.2013
050451140113029747 Tumkur HO 13.01.2014 500-00 24.01.2014
050451140211050195 Tumkur HO 11.02.2014 500-00 20.02.2014
ARTICLE IV
That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office the said Sri. B.R.Vijaya Kumar has shown the below mentioned eMOs booked at Tumkur HÒ as paid to the payee Smt. Shahataj W/o Late Rahamath Ulla-Khan 16Cross, Tumkur-572101 after the death of the payee on 06.06.2012, in violation of Rule 127(1),127(3),127(4) arid 127(5) of Postal Manual Volume VI (Part III Sixth Edition) and thereby alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(1) (i) and 3(1) (ii) of CCS Conduct Rules 1964.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.10.13
09:26:33+05'30'
20 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Name and eMO No. Office booking Date of booking Amount Date on
address of the
which eMOs
pay
shown as
paid to the
payees and
amount
charged to
Shahataj W/o 050451120910571634 Tumkur HO 10.09.2012 400-00 24.09.2012
Late Rahamath 050451130312732682 Tumkur HO 12.03.2013 400-00 20.03.2013
Ulla-Khan, 16 050451130409765355 Tumkur HO 09.04.2013 400-00 22.04.2013
Cross, Tumkur- 050451130509787691 Tumkur HO 09.05.2013 400-00 18.05.2013
572101 050451130705845119 Tumkur HO 05.07.2013 400-00 11.07.2013
050451130914906585 Tumkur HO 14.09.2013 400-00 23.09.2013
050451131010932557 Tumkur HO 10.10.2013 500-00 23.10.2013
050451131116962469 Tumkur HO 16.11.2013 500-00 21.11.2013
ARTICLE V
That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office the said Sri. B.R.Vijaya Kumar has shown the below mentioned eMOs booked at Tumkur HO as paid to the payee Sri. Mohmed Ali Sab S/o Mohammed Gouse Sab, Labour colony, Tumkur-01 after the death of the payee on 23.07.2013, in violation of Rule 127(1), 127(3),127(4) and 127(5) of Postal Manual Volume VI (Part III Sixth Edition) and thereby alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(1) (i) and 3(1) (ii) of CCS Conduct Rules 1964.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.10.13
09:26:33+05'30'
21 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Name and eMO No. Office booking Date of booking Amount Date on
address of the
which eMOs
pay
shown as
paid to the
payees and
amount
charged to
Mohmed Ali 050451140211074449 Tumkur HO 11.02.2014 500-00 24.02.2014
Sab S/o 050451131116967882 Tumkur HO 16.11.2013 500-00 21.11.2013
Mohammed 050451130807870957 Tumkur HO 07.08.2013 400-00 20.08.2013
Gouse Sab, 050451130912902393 Tumkur HO 12.09.2013 400-00 19.09.2013
Labour colony, 050451131010939306 Tumkur HO 10.10.2013 500-00 22.10.2013
Tumkur-01
ARTICLE VI
That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office the said Sri. B.R.Vijaya Kumar has shown the eMO No. 050451131219016263 dated 19.12.2013 booked at Tumkur HO for Rs.1000/- payable to Sri Mudalappa Kempanna- B Block, Hegade colony, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur-572101 as paid to the payee on 03.01.2014 even though the payee died on 05.11.2013, in violation of Rule 127(1),127(3), 127(4) and 127(5) of Postal Manual Volume VI (Part III Sixth Edition) and thereby alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required by Rule 3(1) (i) and 3(1) (ii) of CCS Conduct Rules 1964."
20. It is seen that these six Articles of Charges were serious in nature and were fully proved, during the course of the Disciplinary Proceedings. It is also seen that the applicant has admitted his guilt vide letter dated 24.11.2016 (Annexure R8), which is reproduced as verbatim as under:
S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.10.13 09:26:33+05'30' 22 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH "Date:24.11.2016 From B.R.Vijay Kumar, Post man, Huliyar-572218.
To The Superintendent of Post Offices, Tumkuru Division, Tumkuru-572102.
Respected Sir, Sub: Disc action against B.R.Vijay Kumar.
Ref: Your letter No.F/3-2/2014-15 dated 21.11.2016. I pleaded guilty and admitted charges framed against me, I have also credited amount to UCR and requested your honour to show me clemency. I have stated that the balance amount may kindly be recovered from my pay in monthly installments, In view of this, according to law, I need not attend Inquiry held by Shri Raveedra Naika M. I request your honour kindly to order stoppage of the inquiry and therefore I will not attend on 05-12-2016. I have informed 1 O.Shri Raveedra Naika M. of this by sending a copy this letter. Once I plead guilty to the charges before the disc authority the 1 0 has no further action. I request for recovery of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand rupees only) per month from my pay.
Yours faithfully, sd/-
(B.R.Vijay Kumar)"
21. In this regard, let us examine Annexure R14 - Daily Order Sheet dated 05.12.2016.
"DAILY ORDER SHEET NO 12 DATED 05.12.2016.
Inquiry under Rule-14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 against Sri B.R.Vijayakumar, the then Postman, Tumakuru HPO, now Postman S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.10.13 09:26:33+05'30' 23 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Huliyar SO-577218 vide SPOs. Tumakuru Division, Tumakuru memo No F/3-2/2014-15 dated 17.08.2015.
As scheduled today's sitting was held at the o/o Inspector Posts, Tumakuru Su Division, Tumakuru The following were present:-
1. Sri Raveendra Naika M, ASP RMS Q-IV th Sub Division, Mangaluru-01 -- Inquiry Officer
2. Sri Lokesha, Inspector Posts RMS Q-2 Sub Division.
Mysuru-01 -- Presenting Officer As mentioned in Daily order sheet No 11 dt 17.11.2016, today's sitting was fixed for question by IO to the charged official. The DOS No.11 dt 17.11.2016 was sent to the charged official through Registered Post and also delivered to the charged official.
Today, the charged official did not turn up for inquiry. He in his letter dated 24.11.2016 addressed to SPOs. Tumakuru Division Tumakuru and copy of the letter marked to the IO informed that he pleaded guilty and admitted the charges framed against him vide SPOs, Tumakuru Division, Tumakuru vide memo No F/3-2/2014-15 dated 17.08.2015. As he admitted the charges, he intimated that he will not attend today's inquiry.
The reasonable opportunities were given to the charged official to enable him to explain any circumstances appeared in the evidence against him before the IO on 02.11.2016, 17.11.2016 and 05.12.2016. But, he did not utilize the opportunities given to him.
As the charged official did not turn up for inquiry, today's inquiry held ex-parte. It is clearly mentioned in DOS No.11 dt 17.11.2016 that if the charged official did not tum up for the inquiry, the inquiry will be held ex-parte and the oral inquiry will be closed. Accordingly the oral inquiry is concluded.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.10.13
09:26:33+05'30'
24 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Regarding submission of the brief, the PO is requested to submit his PO brief within 15 days i.e., on 19.12.2016 and the charged official will also submit his defence brief within 15 days from the date of receipt of PO brief by him.
The copy of the DOS will be sent to the charged official through registered post."
The above Annexures/daily order sheet etc., clearly indicate the admission of guilt by the applicant and also the reason for conduct of inquiry ex-parte.
22. We also agree with the contention of the Learned Counsel for respondents that if the CO did not want to participate in the Inquiry and defend himself and also decided to admit the charges on his own by writing letters to the Disciplinary Authority that he is solely responsible for the same. Despite the same, the IO still followed the procedure of inquiry fully, despite the admission of the charges by the applicant. He did not close the case, merely on receipt of letter of admission of the charges written by CO to the DA. DA forwarded the letter of CO dated 24.11.16 to IO vide his office letter dated 5.12.16 asking him to do the needful and submit the IO report after observing all the formalities. Hence, it is clear that IO has conducted the inquiry strictly as per procedure and submitted his report.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.10.13
09:26:33+05'30'
25 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
23. We agree that the Appellate Authority and Revision Authority, based on the records and documents cited, have rightly upheld the contention of the Inquiry Officer that the Charged Officer did not produce even one person, who according to him had received the payments on behalf of the payees to prove that the money was not pocketed by him. It was his responsibility to produce the persons, either the payees themselves or their relatives, who had received the money order amount, as per his contention. Hence, they rightly held that the finding that the money order amounts was not paid to the beneficiaries, was proved. Furthermore, Prosecution Witnesses, who were sons or relatives of the payees, in all the cases, confirmed that the beneficiaries were not alive when the MOs were shown as paid and they have also not received the money order payments due to be received by the deceased payees. The money was also not returned to the post office. Hence, the Appellate Authority and Revision Authority accepted that it was clearly established and rightfully concluded that the money remained with the applicant and it was utilized by him unauthorisedly. The non-returning of MOs of dead payees to State Government and its utilization by the applicant was a grave offence clearly proving lack of absolute integrity.
24. The Appellate Authority and Revision Authority, in the proceedings, have highlighted the chronological sequence of a few S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.10.13 09:26:33+05'30' 26 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH important milestones of the Disciplinary Proceedings. They are essentially as follows:
"The Charged Official approached the DA with two letters dated 9.11.16 and 24.11.16 addressed to DA admitting the charges. He had sent two letters to SPOs Tumkur on 9.11.16 and 24.11.16 requesting him to stop Inquiry, on the ground that he is admitting the charges and the amount due from him could be recovered from his pay. As per records he has credited Rs 33200/- on 3.10.2016 and not on 19.11.2016 as claimed by him. Thereafter, he gave two letters dated 9.11.16 and 24.11.16. He marked a copy of the letter dated 24.11.16 to the IO with the remark "I do not desire you to continue the Inquiry because I have admitted the charges and your activity should stop immediately." It is important to note that the PO had completed examination of prosecution witnesses on 20.9.16 and the IO had fixed 2.11.16 as the date for self-examination of the CO. It is at this juncture, the CO gives letter dated 9.11.16 admitting the charges and requested for stopping Inquiry and order recovery from his salary. The CO had not produced any defence document or defence witnesses. The CO has also not taken part in the Inquiry after four sittings and has not availed the opportunity of cross examination to extract the truth from prosecution witnesses.
Hence, in the absence of any evidence to disprove the charges, the findings of the IO are held as correct. Also, the DA and AA have been rather S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.10.13 09:26:33+05'30'
27 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH lenient in imposing the punishment of Removal from Service. A Postman is entrusted with the sacred duty of payment of pension to old aged, widows and physically handicapped persons. If the Postmen do not pay the amount properly or misappropriates the money orders, the trust in the Postal service is badly affected in the eyes of the public. Continuing such Postmen in service and showing mercy will be detrimental to Postal Service."
25. Regarding non-examination of a few Prosecution Witnesses, it is a settled principle of law that the prosecution is not obligated to examine every single witness listed in the charge sheet/charge memo. They can choose which witnesses to examine based on the relevance and strength of their testimony. The prosecution's decision not to examine a witness does not automatically lead to an adverse inference against them. It is the prerogative of the Inquiring Authority to decide which Prosecution Witnesses to examine and which ones to be given up. It is not essential that all the PWs which were cited should be examined. In this regard, it would be beneficial to refer to the relevant portions of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Dalbir Singh, in Civil Appeal No. 5848/2021, AIR (2021) SC 4504. The relevant paras are as follows:
"20. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh was dealing with the issue of non-examination S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.10.13 09:26:33+05'30' 28 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH of passengers when the allegation against the conductor was non- issuance of the tickets. This Court held that in a domestic enquiry, strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply and that 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. This Court held as under:
"4. It is well settled that 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 text books, 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. However, the courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.10.13
09:26:33+05'30'
29 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
The 'residuum' rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passages from American Jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence
-- not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. ..........."
26. 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.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.10.13
09:26:33+05'30'
30 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
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.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.10.13
09:26:33+05'30'
31 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
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."
27. 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. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, in para nos. 12, 13, 16 & 17 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;
S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.10.13 09:26:33+05'30' 32 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
(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;
(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.
S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.10.13 09:26:33+05'30' 33 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
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) "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."
28. Regarding the contention of learned counsel for the Applicant regarding discrimination in imposition of punishment, we have gone through the above judgments cited by him and the material made available S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.10.13 09:26:33+05'30' 34 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH to us by the learned Counsel for the respondents and also the orders of the Revision and Appellate authorities. It is very clear that the decision of removal has been taken based on the gravity of offences and the extent of involvement of the different charged officers. In the two judgments cited, it is seen that all the delinquents were equally guilty. However it is not so in this case. The applicant was holding a position of trust where honesty and integrity are integral to his functioning. He resorted to misappropriation which tarnished the image of the Department in the eyes of public. Hence, the punishment imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority and subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authority and Revision Authority are proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed by the applicant. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5984/2000 (DD: 11/02/2003) in the case of Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C, Etawah & Ors. Vs. Hoti Lal & Anr., has observed as follows:
"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...."
S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.10.13 09:26:33+05'30' 35 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
29. 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 aforesaid cases of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364, Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah v. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SCC 605, and State Bank of India v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde, (2006) 7 SCC 212 and observed:-
"81. Therefore, the approach of the Court towards a bank employee against whom charges of serious financial misconduct has been proved by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, after a reasoned order based on material evidence, should not be lenient and must be dealt in a strict manner. Unless violation of principles of natural justice, inter alia, is said to have been proved by the Petitioner causing prejudice to the Petitioner in his defence, the Court should not interfere in the concurrent findings by the authorities below."
30. Nature of work of post office and Bank is the same in relation to the money transactions. 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. It has been held that courts do not interfere with quantum of punishment, unless there exists sufficient reasons. The S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.10.13 09:26:33+05'30' 36 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be subjected to judicial review unless it shocks the conscience of the Court. In the case of State of 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 S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.10.13 09:26:33+05'30'
37 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 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 decisionmaking process. If the charged employee holds the position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct, in such cases has to be dealt with with iron hands."
31. 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, the applicant had himself admitted his lapse in his written statement cited as Annexure R8.
32. (a) Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority (Superintendent of Post offices, Tumkuru Division, Tumukuru) vide Proceedings No.F/3-2/2014-15 dated 17/20.03.2017 passed the Order of Removal from service with immediate effect, for the Applicant after due consideration of the inquiry report dated 27.02.2017.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.10.13
09:26:33+05'30'
38 OA 443/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
(b) The Appellate Authority, having considered all the
points put forth in the appeal dated 29.04.2017 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.SK/STA/9-3/10/2017/I dated 19.06.2017.
(c) The Revision Authority after having considered the Revision Petition dated 03.07.2017 rejected the Revision Petition vide Order Memo No.Vig/15-21/2017 dated 19.07.2018.
(d) Subsequently, the Review Petition filed under Rule 29-A of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is also rejected vide Order No.C-17015/17/2023-VP dated 05.04.2024.
33. 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 O.A is liable to be dismissed.
34. The OA is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
sd/- sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K.SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.10.13
09:26:33+05'30'