Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Shridevi S Kayakad vs Deptt Of Posts on 29 July, 2025
1
OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00330/2023
ORDER RESERVED ON: 18.07.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 29.07.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A)
Shridevi S. Kayakad,
Age: 28 years,
D/o Shankarappa Shivappa Kayakad,
Ex GDS MD
Byadgi SO - 581106
Residing at:
Honadad oni,
Near Ramalingeshwara Temple,
Byadgi - 581 106. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri P. Kamalesan)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by Secretary,
Department of Post,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Chief Post Master General,
Karnataka Circle,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. Post Master General,
mikashamikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
suneja 2025.07.30
16:24:45+05'30'
2
OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
North Karnataka Region,
Dharwad - 580 001.
4. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Haveri Division,
Haveri - 581 110.
5. Inspector of Posts,
(Adhoc Disciplinary Authority)
O/O Superintendent of Posts,
Sirsi Dn, Sirsi - 581 402.
6. Inspector Post,
Ranebennur Sub Dn,
Ranebennur - 581 115. ...Respondents
(By Shri Vishnu Bhat, Senior Panel Counsel)
ORDER
PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
1. This OA has been filed on 12.07.2023 for the following reliefs (stated in para 8 of the OA):-
"a. Quash O/O Inspector of posts Ranebennur Sub Dn, Ranebennur- 58115 Memo No. IP/RnR/ADA/SSK/Byadgi SO/Dlgs/2018-19 dated: 25- 02-2019 vide Annexure-A2, issued by respondent No.6. b. Quash O/O Superintendent of post offices, Sirsi Dn, Sirsi-581402 Memo No.IP/HQ/ADA/SSK/Byadgi SO/Dlgs/2018-19 dated: 24-11- 2020 vide Annexure- A6 issued by respondent No.5.
c. Quash O/O Superintendent of Post Offices, Haveri Dn, Haveri- 581110 letter No.F2/111/I/2018-19 dated: 27-7- 2021 vide Annexure-A9 issued by respondent No.4.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 3 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE d. Quash O/O Post Master General, N.K. Region, Dharwad letter No. NKR/VIG/3-9/2021 dated: 2-2-23 Annexure-A11 issued by respondent No.3. e. Consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits. f. Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. These facts are not disputed in this case:-
a) The applicant was appointed on compassionate ground because of death of her father from 01.01.2014 as GDS MD at Byadgi SO.
b) By order dated 07.06.2018 (Annexure - A1), the applicant was placed under put-off duty.
c) Thereafter, a charge sheet was served upon the applicant vide letter dated 25.02.2019 (Annexure - A2). Five article of charges were framed and the time was granted to the applicant for submitting her written statements against the charges within 10 days from the receipt of aforesaid memorandum.
d) The applicant did not submit any written reply to the charge sheet. Thereafter, the Inquiry and Presentation Officers were appointed. The first sitting was held on 22.07.2019 and the inquiry was concluded on 28.01.2020.
e) The Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report dated 15.05.2020 which was communicated to the applicant by Annexure-A4 dated 29.05.2020.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 4 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
f) The applicant submitted the representation dated 01.07.2020 (Annexure - A5). Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the order Annexure-A6 dated 24.11.2020 and awarded the following punishment to the applicant:-
"ORDER I, B. Rajappa, Inspector Posts, (HQ) Sirsi Division in exercise of the powers conferred in Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020 hereby order that, the TRCA of Shridevi. S. Kayakad Dak Sevak (GDS MD) POD Byadgi SO a/w Haveri HO, be reduced to the lower stage in the pre-revised TRCA slab of 2665-50-
4165 for a period of Five years, with immediate effect, with further direction that the She will not earn annual increase in TRCA during the period of reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing future increases of her Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) in accordance with Rule 9(vi) of GDS conduct and engagement Rules 2020. The period of POD is treated as such."
g) The applicant did not prefer any appeal against the aforesaid order Annexure-A6. The competent authority 'Superintendent of Post Offices' on 20.05.2021 issued a notice Annexure-A7 to the applicant in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 19 of the "Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020" and proposed to modify the penalty as "dismissal from engagement".
h) The applicant submitted the representation Annexure-A8 dated 17.06.2021. Thereafter, the concerned authority passed the order mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 5 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE dated 27.07.2021 (Annexure - A9) and enhanced the penalty as "Removal from engagement with immediate effect".
i) The applicant preferred the revision Annexure-A10 to the Postmaster General, N.K. Region, Dharwad on 14.06.2022 but the concerned authority by letter/order dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure
- A11) dismissed the aforesaid revision upon the ground that the revision cannot be entertained. Review application may be preferred before the President of India under Rule 20 of the said Rules. Thereafter, the applicant filed this OA on 12.07.2023.
3. As per applicant, the period of 880 days was spent in the inquiry which is the violation of the guidelines. The revisionary authority, Dharwad refused to entertain the revision petition while the applicant was entitled to file the revision. In addition to aforesaid arguments it is also argued by the counsel for applicant that sufficient opportunities were not given to the applicant, the documents were not provided for perusal in spite the written application and the authority wrongfully dismissed the revision petition. Therefore, the orders Annexures - A2, A6, A9 & A11 are liable to be quashed.
4. On the other side, the respondents opposed the claim of applicant by filing the reply statement on 23.11.2023. It is submitted by the respondents that sufficient opportunities were mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 6 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE given to the applicant, he even cross-examined all the witnesses and also examined the defence witnesses. The examination of the applicant was also conducted during the inquiry. The applicant did not prefer any appeal against the punishment order. Therefore, the principle of estoppel will be applicable and the applicant is not entitled to challenge the inquiry and the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority.
5. The first question is required to be considered:-
"Whether the refusal to entertain the revision petition dated 14.06.2022 (Annexure - A10) by the order dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure - A11) is justified?
6. It has been said in Annexure- A11 in English and Hindi that:-
"Your request dated 19-01-2023 for consideration of revision petition dated 14-06-2022 is re-examined by the competent authority in the light of CO letter No. VIG/15- Misc/V/KW dated 30-12-2022.
However, in continuation of this office letter of even number dated 24-06-2022, it is once again informed that as per Rule 19(2) of the GDS (C&E) Rules 2020 no application to revise an order made on a revision shall be entertained. As such you may submit your review petition to the president of India under Rule 20 of the said Rules.
This is issued with the approval of the competent authority.
दनांक 14-06-2022 क पुनरी ण यािचका पर िवचार करने के िलए आपके दनांक 19-01-2023 के अनुरोध क स म ािधकारी mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 7 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE ारा दनांक 30-12-2022 के सकल ऑ फस प सं VIG/15- िविवध/V/KW के आलोक म पुनः जांच क जाती है। हालां क, दनांक 24-06-2022 के सम सं या के इस कायालय प को जारी रखते ए, यह एक बार फर सूिचत कया जाता है क जीडीएस (सी एंड ई) िनयम 2020 के िनयम 19 (2) के अनुसार संशोधन पर कए गए आदेश को संशोिधत करने के िलए कसी भी आवेदन पर िवचार नह कया जाएगा। इस कार आप उ िनयम के िनयम 20 के तहत भारत के रा पित को अपनी पुन वचार यािचका तुत कर सकते ह।
यह स म ािधकारी के अनुमोदन से जारी कया जाता है।."
7. Rule 13 of the "GDS Rules, 2020" is related to the Appeal. In Rule 13, period of three months is provided for filing the Appeal. But it is an admitted fact that the applicant did not submit any appeal against the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority. Rule 19 is related to the provision of "Revision" which says:-
"19. Revision (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules-
(i) Regional PMG, for those Gramin Dak Sevaks who work in region headed by PMG; and in the rest of the cases by the Head of the Circle/Chief Postmaster- General;
(ii) Any other authority immediately superior to the authority passing the orders; or
(iii) Any other authority specified in this behalf by the Government by general or special order, and within such time as may be specified in that general or special order;
may, at any time, either on its own motion or otherwise call for records of any enquiry or disciplinary case and revise an order made under these rules, reopen the case and after making such enquiry as it considers necessary, may
(a) confirm, modify or set aside the order, or mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 8 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(b) pass such orders as it deems fit.
Provided that no such case shall be reopened under this rule after the expiry of six months from the date of the order to be revised except by the Government or by the Head of Circle or by the Postmaster-General (Region) and also before the expiry of the time-limit of three months specified for preferring an appeal under Rule 14.
Provided further that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any Revisionary Authority unless the Sevak concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty in Clauses (v) and (vi) of Rule 9 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the proposed and where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified order sought to be revised to any of the penalties specified in those clauses, no such penalty shall be imposed except after the inquiry in the manner laid down in Rule 10, in case no such inquiry has already been held. (2) No application to revise an order made on an application for a revision or order passed or made on a revision shall be entertained"
8. It appears from the order Annexure-A7 that the competent authority exercised the powers given under Rule 19 of the Rules, 2020 after the period of filing the appeal because no appeal was filed by the applicant. Hence, the authority was competent to exercise the aforesaid power. The limitation also prescribed in Section 19 and it has been said that "before expiry of the time limit of three months for filing the appeal, such powers cannot be exercised". In the present case, the powers have been exercised mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 9 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE after expiry of the period of three months prescribed for appeal and after verifying the fact that any appeal was not filed.
9. In Section 19(2) it is specifically provided that no application to revive an order on a revision shall be entertained. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the competent authority rightly dismissed the aforesaid revision petition Annexure - A10 by order Annexure - A11.
10. Rule 20 is related to the provision of review which says:-
"20. Review The President may, at any time, either on his own motion or otherwise, which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing the review an order passed under these rules when any new material or evidence order under review and which has the effect of changing the nature of the case, has come, or has been brought to his notice.
Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by the President unless the Sevak concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed or where it is proposed to impose any of the major penalties specified in Rule 9 or to enhance the minor penalty imposed by the order sought to be reviewed to any of the major penalties and if any enquiry under Rule 10 has not been held in the case, no such penalty shall be imposed except after enquiry in the manner laid down in Rule 10 subject to the provisions of Rule 11;
Provided further that such review petition may be preferred within two years subject to the condition that the review petition is based on new evidence which was not available previously and has the effect of changing the nature of the case;
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 10 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Provided further that the powers of the President under this rule shall be exercised by a plenary board comprising of Member (P) and Member (O) or comprising of such authorities as may be delegated from time to time."
11. Therefore, looking to the aforesaid provision of review, it is clearly established that the revision petition was not tenable and the review should be filed before the President, subject to the conditions prescribed in Rule 20. The applicant did not prefer any revision before Hon'ble the President. Hence, it can be said that the Annexur-A11 is the proper order which required no any interference.
12. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the applicant did not prefer any appeal against the order of disciplinary authority by which the punishment was awarded. After expiry of the appeal period of three months, the authority exercised the powers to enhance the punishment. Because any appeal was not preferred by the applicant, therefore, it may be presumed that the applicant accepted the entire inquiry proceedings and the punishment order. When the enhanced punishment order was passed then the principle of estoppel will also be applicable. The applicant cannot challenge the inquiry report and the punishment order. She can only challenge the enhanced punishment order.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 11 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
13. In spite the aforesaid position, if we see the point raised by the applicant then first point raised by the applicant is related to the 'non-supply of documents'. It is submitted by the applicant that she submitted the application Annexure-A3 in this regard, but no response was given by the respondents.
14. It appears from the aforesaid document Anx.A3, that on 22.05.2019, the applicant submitted the aforesaid application only for the "perusal of the documents". While the charge sheet was issued on 25.02.2019 and 10 days' time was granted to the applicant to submit her written statement. Within the aforesaid period, neither the written statement was filed nor was any such request for providing the perusal facilities of the documents made. After a long time, on 22.05.2019 Annexure-A3 was filed. It appears from the inquiry report that on 16.08.2019, the Inquiry Officer marked the prosecution documents in the presence of the applicant. It means that the applicant perused the aforesaid documents properly, thereafter, the marking of exhibit was possible.
15. It also appears that the applicant submitted the representation dated 01.07.2020 (Annexure-A5) against the inquiry report. Thereafter, the punishment order was passed. After expiry of the appeal period, Annexure - A7 was issued to the applicant for enhancement of punishment and the applicant again mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 12 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE submitted the reply / representation on 17.06.2021 (Annexure - A8). In both the documents (Annexure-A5 & A8), the applicant did not raise any question about non-perusal of the documents, etc. The respondents submitted the daily order sheet dated 09.09.2019 in which it is mentioned that:-
"It is requested by CGDS to supply copies of all the above marked 19 (nineteen) documents, the copies of all documents are supplied on the spot. If CGDS desires to have any additional documents, she may apply within 5 (five) days along with relevancy".
The aforesaid portion shows that the documents were supplied and further opportunity was also granted but it is not the case of the applicant that she again applied for other documents and the aforesaid prayer was denied. Hence, the aforesaid arguments of the applicant cannot be accepted that the right to perusal of documents was denied.
16. Sufficient opportunities to defend was also provided to the applicant. The Inquiry Officer submitted a detailed inquiry-report which is from page no. 32 to page no.91 of the OA. At page no. 37 it is stated that the witnesses were examined and the cross- examination was also conducted by the applicant and his defence assistant. Three witnesses in defence were also examined during the inquiry. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the proper and sufficient opportunity to cross-examination of witnesses was provided and the opportunity to examine the defence witnesses was mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 13 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE also provided. Copies of documents were provided. No any violation of natural justice is found. Therefore, it can be said that proper inquiry was conducted and proper opportunity of defence was also provided to the applicant.
17. Now the last question is related to the "Punishment". For this purpose, the perusal of charges is also relevant. Five article of charges were framed against the applicant which are:-
"Statement of articles of charge framed against Miss Shridevi S Kayakad, GDSMD (POD), Byadgi SO In account with Haveri HO Article-I That the said Miss Shridevi S Kayakad while working as GDS MD Byadgi SO a/w Haveri HO for the period from 01.01.2014 to 07.06.2018 shown the e-MO No:054544209390923377 dated 13.03.2018 of Byadgi SO for Rs.500/- payable to Sri. Shivaputrayya Q Hiremath resident of Gummanahalli village as paid 06.04.2018 by putting the thumb impression of the payee herself on eMO form as of the payee, though the payee was deceased on 29.03.2018.
Miss Shridevi S Kayakad shown the eMO amount of Rs 500/- of death beneficiary as paid, in violation of provisions of Rule 70 of Postal Manual Volume VI part II read with Provision to Rule 110 of Indian Post Office Rules 1933, and therefore she is alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of her under Rule-21 of GDS (C&E) Rules 2011.
Article-II That the said Miss Shridevi S Kayakad while working in the aforesaid post, during the aforesaid period, shown the eMO number 054544209390989622 dated 13.03.2018 of Byadgi SO for Rs. 500/- payable to Nurabhi A Olekar resident of Agasanahalli village served mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 14 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE by Byadgi SO, as paid on 11.04.2018 by impressing the LTM herself on the eMO form and did not pay the amount to payee.
Miss Shridevi S Kayakad did not pay the amount of Rs.500/- to the concerned payee, in violation of provisions of Rule 29,40 of Postal Manual Volume VI part II read with Provision to Rule 110 of Indian Post Office Rules 1933, and therefore she is alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of her under Rule-21 of GDS (C&E) Rules 2011.
Article-III That the said Miss Shridevi S Kayakad while working in the aforesaid post, during the aforesaid period, shown the eMO number 054544209390989569 dated 13.03.2018 of Byadgi SO for Rs. 500/- payable to Mallppa H Olekar resident of Angaragatti village served by Byadgi SO, as paid on 05.04.2018, and the above said GDS MD(POD) has took the left hand thumb impression of the payee on e-MO form on 05.04.2018 and shown the eMO as paid. But she did not pay the amount to payee.
Miss Shridevi S Kayakad did not pay the amount of Rs.500/- to the concerned payee, in violation of provisions of Rule 29,40 of Postal Manual Volume VI part II read with Provision to Rule 110 of Indian Post Office Rules 1933, and therefore she is alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of her under Rule-21 of GDS (C&E) Rules 2011.
Article-IV That the said Miss Shridevi S Kayakad while working in the aforesaid post, during the aforesaid period. shown the eMO number 054544209390989639 dated 13.03.2018 of Byadgi SO for Rs. 500/- payable to Mahamadgos E Olekar resident of Agasanahalli village served by Byadgi SO, as paid on 24.03.2018. by putting the signature of the payee herself on eMO form as of the mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 15 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE payee on 24.03.2018 and shown the eMO as paid. But she did not pay the amount to payee.
Miss Shridevi S Kayakad did not pay the amount of Rs.500/- to the concerned payee, in violation of provisions of Rule 29,40 of Postal Manual Volume VI part II read with Provision to Rule 110 of Indian Post Office Rules 1933, and therefore she is alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of her under Rule-21 of GDS (C&E) Rules 2011.
Article-V That the said Miss Shridevi S Kayakad while working in the aforesaid post, during the aforesaid period, shown the eMO number 054544209381293058 dated 13.03.2018 of Byadgi SO for Rs. 1200/- payable to Nagaraj M Hallalli resident of Agasanahalli village served by Byadgi SO, as paid on 03.04.2018, by putting the thumb impression of the payee herself on eMO form as of the payee, on 03.04.2018 and shown the eMO as paid. But she did not pay the amount to payee.
Miss Shridevi S Kayakad did not pay the amount of Rs.1200/- to the concerned payee, in violation of provisións of Rule 29, 40 of Postal Manuai Volume VI part Ii read with Provision to Rule 110 of Indian Post Office Rules 1933, and therefore she is alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of her under Rule-21 of GDS (C&E) Rules 2011."
18. The disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment Annexure-A6 and also mentioned some details about the misconduct of the applicant in relation to the punishment. In the last paras, it is stated that:-
"The charges framed against Shridevi .S. Kayakad Dak Sevak (GDS MD) (POD), Byadgi SO in a/w Haveri HO are severe in nature. Having served more than 05 years mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 16 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE of service in the Department, Shridevi S Kayakad should have cultivated the basic requirements that are expected of the Gramin Dak Sevak. She has failed to inculcate the basic qualities needed for the Gramin Dak Sevak and exhibited the acts of unbecoming a Gramin Dak Sevak. In the instant case, Shridevi S Kayakad GDS MD (POD), Byadgi SO in a/w Haveri HO has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty by non paying of e money orders amount to the concerned payees and made the payment of e Money order in the name of death payee. By the above narrated acts she has tarnished the image of the Department in the eyes of the member of public also. The acts of the Charged GDS official are completely subversive of discipline and warrants imposition of severe punishment. This is very serious offence on the part of charged GDS official, the charged GDS official has expressed her repentance for her great mistake and requested to give her a chance to correct herself and save her life as she is facing financial hardship. Though the charges are very serious in nature, considering her assurance, family distress and financial hardship. her assurance to refrain from such activities in future and considering the family consisting old aged mother and with the ray of hope, a chance to give to the Charged GDS official to mend her conduct behavior in future, I am inclined to take lenient view and pass the following order which will meet the end of justice."
19. The matter was again examined by the superior authority who passed the order of removal from engagement. It is stated in the aforesaid order that:-
" Smt S S Kayakad, Dak Sevak (GDSMD) (POD) Byadgi SO under Haveri HO in her representation dated 17.06.2021, is relied upon her written brief and representation to the ADA on the IO's report as part of this representation which was well taken into consideration by the ADA and opined that, "in the instant mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 17 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE case, Smt S S Kayakad Dak Sevak (GDSMD)(POD) Byadgi SO a/w Haveri HO has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty by non paying of e money orders amount to the concerned payees and made the payment of e Money order in the name of death payee" while issuing order dated 24.11.2020. Her further submissions in the said representation are not at all relevant in the present case. Smt S S Kayakad Dak Sevak (GDSMD) (POD) Byadgi SO a/w Haveri HO has not put forth any new things which was not taken care during oral inquiry and also her representation to IO report.
Smt S S Kayakad Dak Sevak (GDSMD)(POD) Byadgi SO a/w Haveri HO was recruited under compassionate engagement. She is part of the Postal Family even before she was recruited as GDS in the Department. She knew the reputation of the Department since her birth. But, doing the things which were not anticipated from her has diluted the same in the eyes of the reputed customers of the Department, which is not at all acceptable. Serving for more than 5 years in the Department, she should have cultivated promptness and acted in a way which was not expected from a Gramin Dak Sevak. The ADA has taken the case lightly although serious financial irregularities on the part of the Dak Sevak. The charges on the part of Smt S S Kayakad Dak Sevak (GDSMD) (POD) Byadgi SO a/w Haveri HO impinging on her devotion to duty is extremely grave in nature. The conduct of Smt S S Kayakad Dak Sevak (GDSMD)(POD) Byadgi SO a/w Haveri HO has tarnished the image of the Department. By her actions, the trust and faith reposed by the members of the public in the Post Office and that of the Government have been abused and the punishment awarded by the ADA is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence as it is clearly established that Smt S S Kayakad Dak Sevak (GDSMD) (POD) Byadgi SO a/w Haveri HO has brought disgrace to the Post Office and if such persons are allowed to continue in the Department they would mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 18 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE damage the system and esteemed customers of the Department will be the sufferers. With the above discussions, I am convinced that the Smt S S Kayakad Dak Sevak (GDSMD) (POD) Byadgi SO a/w Haveri HO is not a fit person to continue in the Department.
Therefore, as proposed, I hereby order for enhancement of the penalty to that of "removal from engagement with immediate effect"."
20. Therefore, it appears that sufficient weightage has been given to the condition and conduct of the applicant and also the misconduct committed by the applicant. It appears that the applicant herself deposited the amount. It will be useful to refer the following paras of the representation Annexure - A5 dated 01.07.2020:-
"Sir, I have been appointed under compassionate grounds due to sudden death of my father while in service. The responsibility of taking care of my mother lies with me. There is no male child in the family and hence I request you to consider my objectively and sympathetically. I have just obeyed the orders of my superiors like SPM and Inspector of Posts while giving my statement and to credit money to the department. I have not verified any records but simply credited money as per the suggestions of my superiors, reluctantly with great difficulty. Please understand my sufferings till today without adequate means of livelihood, particularly to take care of my mother. Please do not consider me as a fraudulent official as I have not done anything intentionally either to defame the department or for any personal gains. Please believe me on the basis of the hard work I have done for the department, including the helping hand given to the indoor staff of the Byadgi SO. Whether the SPM and staff agree or not TRUTH IS TRUTH AND TRUTH SHALL PREVAIL, it is my firm belief."
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 19 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
21. The approach of the Courts, in dealing with cases of bank and Post office employees, who are responsible for doing the banking work or money transections with General public, and found accused of serious charges, is very different. The bank/Post-office officials are expected to discharge their duty with utmost integrity and honesty in view of the nature of their duties and functions, involving large financial transactions and public money. Courts deal with such employees with utmost strictness as they are expected to work with highest degree of trustworthiness. In respect of delinquent bank employees a distinct jurisprudence has developed.
22. In Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"14. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (1996) 9 SCC 69, it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer /employee acted without mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 20 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct."
23. In Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah v. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SCC 605, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"10. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable...."
24. In State Bank of India v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde, (2006) 7 SCC 212, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"21. Confronted with the facts and the position of law, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that leniency may be shown to the respondent having regard to long years of service rendered by the respondent to the Bank. We are unable to countenance with such submission. As already said, the respondent being a bank officer holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. The respondent was a Manager of the Bank and it needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer so that the confidence of the public/depositors is not impaired. It is for this reason that when a bank officer commits misconduct, as in the mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 21 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE present case, for his personal ends and against the interest of the bank and the depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands and he does not deserve to be dealt with leniently."
25. 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."
26. Nature of work of post office and Bank is the same in relation to the money transections. Thus, it is clear that no leniency can be shown to the post office or Bank employee when grave charges against him have been proved in the disciplinary proceedings. It has been held that courts do not interfere with mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 22 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE quantum of punishment, unless there exists sufficient reasons. The punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be subjected to judicial review unless it shocks the conscience of the Court. In the case of State of Meghalaya and Others vs. Mecken Singh N. Marak, (2008) 7 SCC 580 = 2008(6) SLR 461 (SC) it has been held:-
"14. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The jurisdiction of the High Court, to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. The High Court, although has jurisdiction in appropriate case, to consider the question in regard to the quantum of punishment, but it has a limited role to play. It is now well settled that the High Courts, in exercise of powers under Article 226, do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefor. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. In the impugned order of the High Court no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice.
15. While considering the question of proportionality of sentence imposed on a delinquent at the conclusion of departmental enquiry, the court should also take into consideration, the mental set-up of the delinquent, the type of duty to be performed by him and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision-making process. If the charged employee holds the position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 23 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct, in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands."
27. It has been held in Union of India and Others Vs. M. Duraisamy, 2022[2] All India Service Law Journal 473[19.04.2022] that Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee.
28. Therefore, it appears that the applicant also admitted the act done by her. The amount was also credited by her. This is a serious act that the money orders were not delivered to the concerned person and she put her thumb impression instead of the real payee for showing the payment of money order. One money order shown to paid a person who had already expired. This is cheating with the general public which will affect the reputation of the post office and the entire department. Hence, in these type of offences, no leniency is required. Hence, in view of this Court, the aforesaid type of employee definitely is liable to be dismissed from service.
29. Hence, no reason is found to interfere in any order passed by concerned authorities. Therefore, the OA is dismissed. Both mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.07.30 16:24:45+05'30' 24 OA.No.170/00330/2023/CAT/BANGALORE parties shall bear their own costs. Any M.A. if pending, shall be treated as disposed-off.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ms/
mikashamikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
suneja 2025.07.30
16:24:45+05'30'