Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Jayanna D L vs Department Of Posts on 25 August, 2025
1 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00622/2023
ORDER RESERVED : 18.07.2025
DATE OF ORDER : 25.08.2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI SHRIVASTAVA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MR.SANTOSH MEHRA ...MEMBER(A)
Shri Jayanna D.L.,
S/o Sri.R.Lingappa,
Aged 56 years, Ex-GDS BPM,
Dummenahalli BO.,
a/w Arsikere HO - 573103,
Hassan Division and Residing at
Dummenahalli, Arsikere Taluk,
Hassan District-573103. ...Applicant
(By Advocate, Shri A.R.Holla)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
By Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi -110001.
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.08.26
VI 12:18:25+05'30'
2 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
2. The Director of Postal Services,
O/o Postmaster General,
South Karnataka Region,
Bengaluru-560001.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Hassan Division,
Hassan-573201. ...Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri S.Prakash Shetty)
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Santosh Mehra ...........Member(A)
The Applicant has requested for the following relief :
"(i) To quash the (a) Order No.F1/4-5/2019-20 dated @ Hassan the 09.02.2023 issued by the Respondent No.3, Annexure A5 and (b) Order No.SK/STA/9-3/11/2023/I dated at Bengaluru-
560001, the 10.10.2023, issued by the Respondent No.2, Annexure A7.
(ii) Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits including continuity of service making full payment of pay and allowances during the period from 18.12.2019, the date he was put off duty till the date of his reinstatement and S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 3 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
(iii) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows :
The Applicant was working as GDS , BPM in Arsikere HO from 1987 to 2019. He was placed under 'Put Off' duty in view of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him in 2019, on five Articles of Charges related to misappropriation, absence of devotion to duty and improper financial transactions etc. The Inquiry Authority submitted his report in February, 2022 holding all Articles of Charges as proved. After due consideration of the representation of the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of Compulsory discharge from engagement with immediate effect with monetary benefits (i.e SDBS etc.) and GDS gratuity proportionate to engagement period rendered by GDS, on the applicant. The Appellate Authority also rejected the Appeal of the applicant and confirmed the punishment. The applicant is aggrieved by the imposition of punishment as per the impugned orders. According to the applicant, these orders are arbitrary and issued without any application of mind. Hence, he has come for relief through this OA.
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.08.26
VI 12:18:25+05'30'
4 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
3. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, while
working as GDS in Dummenahalli BO, the applicant was placed under 'Put Off Duty' on 18.12.2019, in view of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him, under Rule 10 of GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011. The gist of the five charges against the applicant are as follows:
1) He accepted Rs.4000/- on 11.01.2019 from Shri Halappa, being RD installments for the month of October, 2018 to May 2019 but did not take into credit in the Account Books of Post Office.
2) He accepted Rs.1000/- on 12.06.2017 from Smt.Janakamma towards her S.B. account but did not take into credit in the Account Books of Post Office.
3) He accepted Rs.2000/- on 05.10.2018 and Rs.2000/- on 09.02.2019 from Smt.Rajamani towards her S.B. account but did not take into credit in the Account Books of Post Office.
4) He has accepted from Smt.B.G.Kamala, Rs.3276/- + Service Tax Rs.82/- on 05.12.2018 towards the premium of her RPLI policy from January, 2019 to December, 2019, but failed to account the same in the Accounts Books of Post Office.
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.08.26
VI 12:18:25+05'30'
5 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
5) He failed to credit Rs.119/- + Service Tax Rs.2/- on 13.03.2018, Rs.119/- + Service Tax of Rs.2/- on 12.04.2018, Rs.119/- +Service Tax of Rs.2/- being the premium from March, 2018 to June 2018 in respect of premium of RPLI policy of Shri Suresh but did not take into Account in the Books of Post Office.
4. Inquiry Officer was appointed who conducted the enquiry and submitted his report on 10 February 2022 to the Disciplinary Authority, concluding that all Articles of Charges were proved against the applicant. The Disciplinary Authority furnished a copy of the Inquiry Report to the applicant on 11.02.2022, directing him to submit his representation within 15 days. The applicant submitted his representation on 06.04.2022. The Disciplinary Authority, who is Respondent No.3 here passed an order dated 09.02.2023 imposing the penalty of compulsory discharge from engagement, with monetary benefits (i.e. SDBS etc.) and GDS gratuity proportionate to engagement period rendered by GDS, on the applicant.
5. The learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant submitted an appeal S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 6 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH to the Director of Postal Services, Respondent No.2 on 10.03.2023. However, the Respondent No.2 also rejected his representation and confirmed the punishment by order dated 10.10.2023. The learned Counsel for applicant states that the impugned orders are arbitrary and passed without any application of mind . He avers that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, in the absence of any complaint. He states that there is neither any complaint nor complainant with respect to any of the five Articles of Charges, which were looked into during the disciplinary proceedings .
6. The learned Counsel for applicant further submits that none of the witnesses, whose statements were recorded during the Preliminary Inquiry, was subjected to any cross examination during the course of the Regular Inquiry. According to him, this is a case of 'No Evidence' and hence, neither reliance nor sanctity should have been attached to the statements of these witnesses. He points out that the Inquiry Authority recorded the statements of official witnesses who were interested witnesses. He based his findings on their deposition which was against the law. He further submits that he was forced by the officials of Department S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 7 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH of Posts to deposit Rs.59,000/- on 20.09.2019, Rs.30,000/- on 21.09.2019 and Rs.30,000/- on 28.09.2019 (Rs.1,19,000/- in total) in the Arsikere HO under the threat of police action. The applicant was further forced to give a letter on 28.09.2019 stating that the amounts were voluntarily deposited by him. The acknowledgement slip issued to the applicant for the above three deposits indicated that the same were made for "Purpose: Others". He argues that the above acts of the authorities of Department of Post amount to extortion.
7. Furthermore, the Counsel for the applicant has repeatedly asserted that the crucial PWs were not examined at all, thereby depriving the applicant the opportunity of their cross examination.
8. The learned Counsel for applicant further points out that the above irregularities and manipulation were highlighted by the applicant in his representation to the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority. The applicant stated in his Appeal that the prescribed procedure was not followed, the findings were not at all based on evidence adduced and the penalty was disproportionate. However, both the Disciplinary and the S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 8 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Appellate Authorities did not take cognizance of the highlighted issues and passed the impugned orders. Hence, they should be set aside.
9. The Respondents have furnished their reply. According to the learned Counsel for the Respondents, the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Hassan Division, during inspection of Dummenahally B.O under Arsikere H.O on 13.06.2019, noticed that the applicant defrauded an amount to tune of Rs.1,41,632/- (Rs.1,24,132/- permanent and Rs.17,500/- temporary). On detection of this fraud, the applicant credited total amount of Rs.1,21,500/- into department account voluntarily vide Annexure-R1, R2 & R3.
10. In view of above, the applicant was proceeded under Rule 10 of Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011. He was issued Memorandum of Article of Charges vide Annexure A2. During the preliminary Inquiry, the applicant denied all charges leveled against him. The applicant did not attend the inquiry even though advance notices was sent to him for the same on six occasions as per the table given below:
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.08.26
VI 12:18:25+05'30'
9 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Sl.No. Date of Inquiry Remarks
1 06.04.2021 Regd/AD notice delivered to the applicant
2 27.07.2021 The applicant refused to accept registered
notice issued to attend the Inquiry
3 02.09.2021 Regd/AD notice delivered to the applicant
4 21.10.2021 The applicant refused to accept registered
notice issued to attend the Inquiry
5 16.11.2021 The applicant refused to accept registered
notice issued to attend the Inquiry
6 07.12.2021 The applicant attended this sitting and left the
Inquiry at 10.15 am and didn't turn up again.
As the applicant did not attend the inquiry despite being given sufficient opportunities and intimations, the Inquiry Authority conducted the inquiry ex-parte. A copy of the Inquiry Report was furnished to the applicant on which he submitted his representation on 03.03.2022. The Respondent No.3, after giving due consideration to the Inquiry Report and the representation of the applicant awarded the Penalty of Compulsory Discharge from engagement with immediate effect with monetary benefits (i.e., SDBS etc) and GDS gratuity proportionate to engagement period rendered by the GDS. The applicant submitted an appeal to Respondent No.2, the Appellate Authority, which was also rejected by him after due consideration.
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.08.26
VI 12:18:25+05'30'
10 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
11. The Learned Counsel for Respondents avers that in all 7 PWs, including four departmental witnesses and three public witnesses, were examined during the course of the Departmental inquiry. These witnesses confirm the facts and also identify all the relevant documents and records. The other Prosecution Witnesses chose not to attend the inquiry despite several notices issued to them. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for Respondents that the Prosecution Witnesses were not examined is not correct. He also states that the question of cross- examination does not arise as the applicant chose not to attend the enquiry, despite repeated notices issued to him. The learned Counsel for Respondents points out that the applicant was the Branch Postmaster of that Post Office and in that capacity he was the sole custodian of the unique date stamp of the branch of Post Office and was also responsible for all financial transactions and maintenance of accounts in the Branch. Apart from the statements of the 7 Prosecution Witnesses, there is sufficient documentary evidence in the form of copies of the passbooks, transaction inquiry reports, statements of the account holders etc., which S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 11 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH are produced as Annexure R4 to R15, which comprehensively and conclusively prove the Articles of Charges against the applicant.
12. The learned Counsel for Respondents highlights that the Department of Post Office has an inbuilt Vigilance mechanism for detection of frauds and misappropriation. This includes routine and regular inspections and audits by Superior Officers. The misappropriation by the applicant was detected during the course of such annual inspection of the Dummenahalli Branch Post Office on 13.06.2019. The Department does not need to procure nor rely upon the receipt of complaints from private individuals, once misappropriation or frauds are detected based on the inspections and audits of the documents and records maintained in a branch Post Office.
13. The learned Counsel for Respondents further points out that adequate opportunities were provided to the applicant during the course of departmental proceedings. The applicant was at liberty to attend the inquiry and prove his innocence but he chose not to attend the proceedings except for during the Preliminary sitting, marking of documents and the S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 12 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH final sitting. The Inquiry Officer had proved the Articles of Charges on the basis of the statements of the PWS and the overwhelming evidence available in the form of records and documents which clearly indicated the culpability of the applicant.
14. Strongly refuting the charges of extortion , the learned Counsel for Respondents points out that the applicant had voluntarily credited the amount to the departmental account by enclosing letters dated 20.09.2019, 21.09.2019 and 28.09.2019 which are shown as Annexures R1, R2 and R3 respectively. He had credited the amounts totaling Rs.1,21,500/- to the departmental accounts as he had misappropriated them and he was responsible for the same. Learned Counsel further reiterated that the remittance of Rs.1,21,500/- by he applicant is admission of guilt on his part. He asserts that the allegation of threat of police action and extortions, which are made after a lapse of several years, are only an after thought on the part of the applicant and are totally untenable.
15. The learned Counsel for Respondents highlights that the applicant was holding a position of trust where honesty and integrity are S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 13 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH integral to his functioning as large number of the customers are illiterate at village level. Hence, they repose full confidence in the Branch Postmaster. The applicant had abused the trust of such people by resorting to misappropriation which has 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 are proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed by the applicant. In this regard the learned Counsel has invited our attention to the judgment of 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. The relevant portion is 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 S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.08.26
VI 12:18:25+05'30'
14 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
16. The learned Counsel also places reliance on the Order of this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No.121/2022 (DD:12.02.2024) - D.S.Soma vs. Union of India and others. The relevant paras are as follows:
15. The charges proved against the applicant are certainly grave since they indicate a lack of integrity which is crucial to the functioning of the Postal Department. The action of the applicant betrays the trust imposed on him both by the Postal Department as well as by the public, as a public functionary, while handing money which is the property of the depositors. The penalty of dismissal from engagement imposed on the applicant cannot be considered as shockingly disproportionate given the facts and circumstances of the case."
17. Learned Counsel concludes by stating that in the conduct of inquiry, principles of natural justice have been followed and the punishment is proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
18. We have given thoughtful consideration to the averments and arguments of the learned counsels for the applicant and respondents. We have also carefully gone through all the documents and records including the judgments of the Superior Courts, relevant sections and clauses of the S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 15 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH departmental rules etc., which were brought on record by the respective counsels.
1) The applicant was subjected to Disciplinary Proceedings on five Articles of Charges related to misappropriation, absence of devotion to duty and improper financial transactions etc.
2) The Inquiry Authority conducted the inquiry as per the laid down procedure. However, since the applicant did not attend the inquiry, it was conducted ex-parte. Copy of the Inquiry Report was furnished to the applicant on which he submitted his representation to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, after due consideration of representation passed the punishment order.
3) Subsequently, the representation/Appeal of the applicant was rejected by the Appellate Authority and a detailed Speaking Order has been issued in the matter.
19. It is seen that the applicant has himself remitted a total amount of Rs.1,21,500/- along with the letters dated 20.09.2019 (Rs.59,000/-), 21.09.2019 (Rs.32,500/-) and 28.09.2019 (Rs.30,000/-), which allude to admission of his guilt. The letters cited as Annexures R1, R2 and R3 and S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 16 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH the statement of applicant dated 27.09.2019 vide Annexure R7 are reproduced below ad verbatim for ease of convenience:
Letter dated 20.09.2019 "From D.L.Jayanna, GDSBPM (POD), Dummenahalli BO, Account with Arsikere HO.
To The Postmaster, Head Post Office, Arsikere.
Sir, Sub: Depositing to the UCR regarding.
I would like to inform that while working as BPM Dummenahalli BO, the amount collected from the SB account holders and Grameen Postal Insurance holders are not deposited to the departmental accounts by me. I have utilized this amount personally. Today I have deposited on my own will Rs.59,000/- to the department. I request that this amount be accepted and receipt issued to me.
Yours faithfully,
-sd-
D.L.Jayanna GDS/BPM/(POD), Dummenahalli BO, Account with Arsikere HO.
Place: Dummenahalli, Date: 20/09/2019.
Receipt No.156897241836 dated 20/09/2019 of Arsikere Head Post Office forwarded to the ASPOs Arsikere Sub-Dn, Arsikere."
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.08.26
VI 12:18:25+05'30'
17 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Letter dated 21.09.2019
"From
D.L.Jayanna,
GDSBPM (POD),
Dummenahalli BO,
Account with Arsikere HO.
To
The Postmaster,
Head Post Office,
Arsikere.
Sir,
Sub: Depositing to the UCR regarding.
While working as GDSBPM/DP Dummenahalli BO account with Arsikere HO, I have not credited the amounts collected towards some SB, RPLI and RD accounts and have utilized the amounts personally. Today I am on my own will crediting Rs.32,500/- to the department and request that the same may be accepted and receipt be granted to me.
-sd-
D.L.Jayanna GDS/BPM/(POD), Dummenahalli BO, Account with Arsikere HO.
Place: Arsikere Date: 21/09/2019.
Receipt No. for Rs. Issued by Arsikere HO on forwarded to the ASPOs Arsikere Sub-Dn, Arsikere."
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.08.26
VI 12:18:25+05'30'
18 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Letter dated 28.09.2019
"From
D.L.Jayanna,
GDSBPM (POD),
Dummenahalli BO,
Account with Arsikere HO.
To
The Postmaster,
Head Post Office,
Arsikere.
Sir,
Sub: Depositing to the UCR regarding.
While working as GDSBPM/DP Dummenahalli BO account with Arsikere HO, I have not credited the amounts collected towards some SB, RPLI and RD accounts. In connection with that I am on my own will crediting Rs.30,000/- to the department and request that the same may be accepted and receipt granted to me.
-sd-
D.L.Jayanna GDS/BPM/(POD), Dummenahalli BO, Account with Arsikere HO.
Place: Arsikere Date: 28/09/2019.
Receipt No.156965442501 for Rs.30,000/- issued by Arsikere HO on 28.09.2019."
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.08.26
VI 12:18:25+05'30'
19 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Statement of applicant dated 27.09.2019.
"Statement of D.L.Jayanna GDS/BPM/DP(POD), Dummenahalli BO, account with Arsikere HO, Arsikere taluk given before the Asst.Suptd of POs Arsikere Sub-Dn on 27.09.2019.
My name is D.L.Jayanna s/o R.Lingappa, Dummenahalli village. I am working as Branch Postmaster of following statement before the ASPOs Sub-Dn, Arsikere.
The RD passbook no.3186452496 shown tome today is seen by me. I have also seen the ledger book. On 11/01/2019, I have worked as BPM in the post office and have collected the deposit of RD account 3186452496. Shri Haralappa has come to the post office and tendered Rs.4000/- (rupees four thousand only for depositing in his account. I have myself filled up the Pay-in-slip, entered the details of the deposit in the passbook and have impressed the date stamp. I have not written the details in the office RD journal and also have not written any details in the journal. I have not taken this amount in the BO account book also. I have filled the pay-in- slip (SB 103) myself and have destroyed it, personally utilized the amount. I have credited this amount to the department and will work carefully without giving room for repetition.
This statement is given by my own will without any force. All the statement are true.
Place: Dummenahalli -sd-
Dated 27.09.2019 D.L.Jayanna
GDS/BPM/(POD), Dummenahalli BO.,
Account with Arsikere HO.
Before me
-sd-
ASPOs, Arsikere Sub-dn
Attested
-sd-
SPOs Hassan Dn, Hassan."
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.08.26
VI 12:18:25+05'30'
20 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
20. The remittance of money totally Rs.1,21,500/- was done through Annexures R1, R2 and R3 and acceptance of mistakes vide Annexure R7 are done in September, 2019, while allegation of extortion/threat of police action are made after a lapse of 3/4 years. Hence they appear to be an after thought.
21. From the above, it is very clear that once misappropriation was detected during the course of inspection, the applicant tried to minimize his losses by remitting the amount. Moreover, nothing is brought on record to indicate that he was subjected to coercion regarding remittance of money in the official account of the Post Office.
22. Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that crucial PWs were not examined, thereby, depriving the applicant the opportunity to cross examine them, 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 S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 21 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 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:
"21. ... A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh 3 was dealing with the issue of non- examination 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 S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 22 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 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. 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 S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 23 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 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. ..........."
23. Similar views have been expressed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No.121/2022 (DD:12.02.2024) in the case of D.S.Soma vs. Union of India and others. The relevant paras are as follows:
"6. The major defence of the applicant to these allegations relate to the fact that the primary depositors had not appeared before the Inquiry Officer to substantiate the allegations made in the charge memo. The Inquiry Officer had relied upon the statements made by these depositors before the Mail Overseer II, Hunsur Division, as well as the entries in the pass books of the depositors concerned.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that since there was no complaint from the depositors, and they had also not attended the inquiry proceedings, the depositors had not been examined in the inquiry and there was no cross-
examination of these prime witnesses.
..........................................................
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.08.26
VI 12:18:25+05'30'
24 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
8. ...............
9. .....................
10. In a departmental inquiry, the quality of evidence available has to be examined and appreciated by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. This Tribunal is not required to review the quality of the evidence which has been evaluated by the Disciplinary and the Appellate authorities.
11. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. ((1995) 6 SCC 749), a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court has held that power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the court. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. It was held as under:
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 25 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 26 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co- extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718], this Court held at page 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
12. The Apex Court in the case of State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Chitra Venkata Rao on 29 August, 1975 (1975 AIR 2151, 1976 SCR (1) 521) has observed as follows:
"21. The scope of Article 226 in dealing with departmental inquiries has come up before this Court. Two propositions were laid down by this Court in State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao. First, there is no warrant for the view that S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 27 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH in considering whether a public officer is guilty of misconduct charged against him, the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court must be applied. If that rule be not applied by a domestic tribunal of inquiry the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not a court of appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 28 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. The departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226."
24. It is abundantly clear from the above facts and circumstances, that Disciplinary Proceedings were conducted in a proper manner as per the laid down Conduct Rules. There is nothing on record to show that any malafide was involved.
25. 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 S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 29 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 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.
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.
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.08.26
VI 12:18:25+05'30'
30 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
E. Disproportionate Punishment:
If the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct, the court may consider it a ground for interference, although courts are generally reluctant to substitute their own judgment on punishment.
F. Lack of Jurisdiction or Bias:
If the disciplinary authority lacks the jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry or if there is a demonstrable bias against the delinquent employee, the court may intervene.
G. Violation of Statutory Rules:
If the disciplinary proceedings violate any specific statutory rules governing such proceedings, the court can interfere.
H. No Evidence:
If the disciplinary authority's findings are not supported by any evidence, the court can intervene."
26. 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.
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.08.26
VI 12:18:25+05'30'
31 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
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;
(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;
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.08.26
VI 12:18:25+05'30'
32 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
(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.
14. ........................
15. .......................
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.08.26
VI 12:18:25+05'30'
33 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
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."
27. The contention of learned Counsel for applicant that the punishment of compulsory discharge from engagement with immediate S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 34 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH effect with monetary benefits (i.e., SDBS etc.,) and GDS gratuity proportionate to engagement period rendered by GDS, imposed upon the applicant is highly disproportionate compared to the gravity of offence, is wholly incorrect, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the applicant was holding a position of trust and he was dealing with the money transaction. 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 transactions 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.
28. In Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.08.26
VI 12:18:25+05'30'
35 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
"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 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."
29. 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 S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 36 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable...."
30. 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 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."
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.08.26
VI 12:18:25+05'30'
37 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
31. 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."
32. 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 S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 38 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH to the post office or Bank employee when grave charges against him have been proved in the disciplinary proceedings.
33. 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.
34. (a) Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority (Superintendent of Post offices, Hassan Division, Hassan) vide Memo No. F1/4-5/2019- 20, dated 09-02-2023, passed the Order of compulsory discharge from Engagement with immediate effect with monetary benefits (i.e. SDBS etc.,) and GDS gratuity proportionate to engagement period rendered by GDS, after due consideration of the inquiry report dated 10.02.2022.
(b) Subsequently, the Appellate Authority, having considered all the points put forth in the appeal dated 10.03.2023 of the applicant, issued a detailed and well-reasoned speaking order with cogent reasons S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.08.26 VI 12:18:25+05'30' 39 OA 622/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH for each of the grounds raised by the applicant and rejected the appeal vide Memo No. SK/STA/9- 3/11/2023/I, dated 10.10.2023.
35. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Disciplinary Proceedings and the punishment imposed. Hence, the OA is liable to be dismissed.
36. The OA is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
sd/- sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K.SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.08.26
VI 12:18:25+05'30'