Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Manas Ranjan Das vs Post Odisha Circle on 9 October, 2025
1 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022
Reserved on 18.09.2025 Pronounced on 09.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Manas Ranjan Das, aged about 45 years, Ex-
Gramin Dak Sevak, Branch Post Master,
Baisinga B.O. At-Nilamadhabapur, PO-
Malapura, PS- Kamakhyanagar, Dist.-
Dhenkanal-759018.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through its
Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Odisha Circle,
At/Po-Bhubaneswar, District- Khurda-
751001.
3. The Director of Postal Services, Sambalpur
Region, Sambalpur, O/o The Chief Postmaster
General, Sambalpur Region, At-PO-
Sambalpur, PIN-768001.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Dhenkanal Division, AT/PO-Dhenkanal, PIN-
759001.
5. Inquiry Officer cum ASP (OD), Sambalpur
Division, At/PO- Sambalpur, Pin-768001.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. N.K.Sahoo, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. A.K.Mohapatra, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2025.10.09 09:47:33
+05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
Fact of the matter is that during verification, it was found by the department that the applicant in the capacity of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master, Baisinga BO in account with Badasuanlo SO under Dhenkanal Postal Division had collected amounts from depositors to deposit in their respective Savings Banks, Recurring Deposits and Sukanya Samridhi Accounts, which he had entered in the respective SB/RD/SSA passbooks with his signature and Branch PO Date Stamp but did not credit the said amount into Govt. accounts. Alleging misappropriation of Govt. Money/omission/commission, departmental proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 10 of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 vide Memo dated 26.02.2018. The sum and substance of the allegation made against him in the memorandum of charge is as under:
"Article-l Shri Manas Ranjan Das while functioning as GDSBPM, Baisingha BO, in account with Badasuanlo S.O. during the period from 06.09.2010 to 04.10.2015 accepted a sum of Rs.4000/- and Rs.2500/- from Sri Nirmal Diani, depositor of SB RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 pass book account No. 1071621 on 11.06.2015 (as per date stamp in the pass book) and 08.09.2015 (as per date stamp in the pass book) respectively along with the sald pass book and pay in slip for deposit. The said Shri Das, after entering the aforesaid deposit amounts on the aforesaid dates in the said pass book did not credit the above noted deposit amounts into Govt. account on the dates of deposit or on any other subsequent dates. By the above acts, the said Shri Das violated the provisions contained in Rule-133(2) and the instruction No. 20 under caption "What a BPM should not fail to do incorporated in "Rules for Branch Offices" Eighth Edition, corrected up to 28 September, 2007 and thereby put pecuniary loss of Rs.6500/- to the Govt. on the dates of deposit as noted above and thereby committed grave misconduct.
It is therefore imputed that Shri Manas Ranjan Das, in the capacity of GDSBPM, Baisinga B.O. failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as enjoined in Rule-21 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011. Article-II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid capacity, the said Shri Manas Ranjan Das accepted a sum of Rs 4000/-, Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 300/- from Sri Pabitra Moharana, depositor of SB pass book account No. 1069801 on 24.07.2015 (as per date stamp in the pass book), 26.08.2015 (as per date stamp in the pass book) and 16.09.2015 (as per date stamp in the pass book) respectively along with said pass book and pay in slip for deposit. The said Shri Das, after entering the aforesaid deposits on the aforesaid dates in the said pass book did not credit the above noted deposit amounts into Govt. account on the dates of deposit or on any other subsequent dates. By the above acts, the said Shri Das violated the provisions contained in Rule-133(2) and the instruction No. 20 under caption "What a BPM should not fail to do incorporated in "Rules for Branch Offices" Eighth Edition, corrected up to 28 September, 2007 and thereby put pecuniary loss of Rs.5300/- to the Govt. on the dates of deposit as noted above and thereby committed grave misconduct.
It is therefore imputed that Shri Manas Ranjan Das, in the capacity of GDSBPM, Baisinga B.O. failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as enjoined in Rule-21 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011. Article-III That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid capacity, the said Shri Manas Ranjan Das accepted a sum of Rs.4000/- from Pratima Das depositor of SB pass book account No. 1070672 on 07.08.2015 (as per date stamp in the pass book) along with said pass book and pay in slip for deposit. The said Shri Das, after entering the aforesaid RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 deposit on the aforesaid date in the said pass book did not credit the above noted deposit amount into Govt. account on the date of deposit or on any other subsequent date. By the above acts, the said Shri Das violated the provisions contained in Rule-133(2) and the instruction No. 20 under caption What a BPM should not fail to do incorporated in "Rules for Branch Offices Eighth Edition, corrected up to 28 September, 2007 and thereby put pecuniary loss of Rs. 4000/- to the Govt. on the date of deposit as noted above and thereby committed grave misconduct.
It is therefore imputed that Shri Manas Ranjan Das, in the capacity of GDsBPM, Baisinga B.O. failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as enjointed in Rule-21 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011. Article-IV That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid capacity, the said Shri Manas Ranjan Das accepted the following deposit amounts along with the RD pass book and pay in slip from Sri Abhaya Kumar Sahoo, depositor of Baisinga BO RD account No. 145744.
Date of deposit Deposit in Rs. Balance after
transactions in
Rs.
30.11.2013 3000.00+30.00 9000.00
24.12.2013 1500.00 10500.00
22.01.2014 1500.00 12000.00
24.02.2014 1500.00 13500.00
22.03.2014 1500.00 15000.00
16.04.2014 1500.00 16500.00
12.06.2014 3000.00+30.00 19500.00
30.07.2014 1500.00 21000.00
30.08.2014 1500.00 22500.00
24.09.2014 1500.00 24000.00
13.03.2015 9000.00+225.00 33000.00
29.04.2015 1500.00 34500.00
21.05.2015 1500.00 36000.00
15.09.2015 6000.00+90.00 42000.00
Total: 36375.00
The said Shri Das although entered the above deposited amounts in the said RD pass book, he did not credit the above said amounts into Govt. account on the very date of deposits(as shown in the pass book) against monthly deposit for the aforesaid period.
RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 By the above acts, the said Shri Das violated the provisions contained in Rule-133 (2) and the instruction No. 20 under caption "What a BPM should not fail to do incorporated in "Rules for Branch Offices" Eighth Edition, corrected up to 28th September, 2007 and thereby put pecuniary loss of Rs.36375/- to the Govt. on the dates of deposit as noted above and thereby committed grave misconduct.
It is therefore imputed that Shri Manas Ranjan Das, in the capacity of GDSBPM, Baisinga B.O. failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as enjoined in Rule-21 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011. Article-V That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid capacity, the said Shri Manas Ranjan Das accepted the following deposit amounts along with the RD pass book and pay in slip from Sri Amaresh Behera, depositor of Baisinga BO RD account No. 146108.
Date of Deposit in Rs. Balance after
deposit transactions in
Rs.
23.03.2015 500.00 7000.00
04.04.2015 500.00 7500.00
04.06.2015 1000.00+5:00 8500.00
(DF)
25.08.2015 1000.00+5.00 9500.00
(DF)
3010.00
The said Shri Das although entered the above deposited amounts in the said RD pass book, he did not credit the above said deposited amount of Rs 3010/- into Govt. account on the very date of deposits (as shown in the pass book) against monthly deposit for the aforesaid period.
By the above acts, the said Shri Das violated the provisions contained in Rule-133 (2) and the instruction No. 20 under caption "What a BPM should not fail to do incorporated in "Rules for Branch Offices" Eighth Edition, corrected up to 28th September, 2007 and thereby put pecuniary loss of Rs.3010/- to the Govt. on the dates of deposit as noted above and thereby committed grave misconduct.
It is therefore imputed that Shri Manas Ranjan Das, In the capacity of GDSBPM, Baisinga B.O. failed to maintain RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 absolute integrity and devotion to duty as enjoined in Rule-21 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011. Article-VI That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid capacity, the said Shri Manas Ranjan Das accepted the following deposit amounts along with the RD pass book and pay in slip from Sri Basanta Kumar Sahoo, depositor of Baisinga BO RD account No. 146551.
Date of deposit Deposit in Rs. Balance after
transactions in
Rs.
05.05.2015 1000.00+5.00 5000.00
12.06.2015 500.00 5500.00
17.07.2015 500.00 6000.00
13.08.2015 500.00 6500.00
14.09.2015 500.00 7000.00
Total 3005.00
The said Shri Das although entered the above deposited amounts in the said RD pass book, he did not credit the aforesaid deposited amount of Rs.3005/-Into Govt. account on the very date of deposits(as shown in the pass book) against monthly deposit for the aforesaid period.
By the above acts, the said Shri Das violated the provisions contained in Rule-133 (2) and the instruction No. 20 under caption "What a BPM should not fail to do incorporated in "Rules for Branch Offices" Eighth Edition, corrected up to 28th September, 2007 and put pecuniary loss to the Govt. on the dates of deposit as noted above and thereby committed grave misconduct.
It is therefore imputed that Shri Manas Ranjan Das, in the capacity of GDSBPM, Baisinga BO failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as enjoined in Rule-21 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011."
2. The Inquiry Officer submitted its report copy of which was supplied to the applicant, which has been placed on record by the applicant in this OA wherein the IO analysed as under:
Article-I xx xx xx RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 From the deposition dated 12.09.19 of SW-3, Ext-5-5 and Ext-5- 6, it is clear that cash deposit of Rs. 4000/- and Rs.2500/- were actually took place in Ext-S-6 on dtd.11.06.15 and 08.09.15 respectively. The CO authenticated the deposits in Ext-5-6 by putting the date stamp of Baisinga BO of which he was the sole custodian as admitted during question by IO. The veracity of Ext-S-5 is unquestionable as the SW-4 and SW-8 during their deposition recounted that the contents of Ext-S-5 is as per the version of SW-3.
From Ext-S-6, Ext-5-22, Ext-S-26 it is clear that the deposits amounts of Rs.4000/and Rs.2500/- reflected on dtd.11.06.15 and 08.09.15 respectively in Ext-S-6 were not reflected in Ext- S-22, Ext-5-26 which confirmed that the said amount was not taken into govt. account by CO. This is further affirmed through Ext-5-7, Ext-5-12 after the said deposits were not reflected in it. This is further corroborated by SW-8 in his deposition dated
03.02.20 while answering the modus operandi of fraud committed by CO.
While answering question by 10 in question no.7, the CO admitted that the deposits amounts of Rs.4000/- and Rs.2500/- reflected on dtd.11.06.15 and 08.09.15 respectively in Ext-5-6 were not reflected in Ext-5-22, Ext-5-26 and were not taken into Govt. account and also he admitted that he committed a mistake by doing SO.
Taking into account the above facts and figures, the charges in article I is proved beyond doubt.
Article-II
xx xx xx
From the deposition dated 12.09.19 of SW-1, Ext-S-1 and Ext- S-2, it is clear that cash deposit of Rs.4000/-, Rs.1000/- and Rs.300/- were actually took place in Ext-S-2 on dtd.24.07.15, 26.08.15 and 16.09.15 respectively. The CO authenticated the deposits in Ext-5-2 by putting the date stamp of Baisinga BO of which he was the sole custodian as admitted during question by
10. The veracity of Ext-S-1 is unquestionable SW-8 during their deposition recounted that the contents of Ext-S-1 is as per the version of SW-1.
From Ext-5-2, Ext-5-22, Ext-5-26 it is clear that the deposits amounts of Rs. 4000/, Rs.1000 and Rs.300 on dtd. 24.07.15, 26.08.15 and 16.09.15 respectively in Ext-5-2 were not reflected in Ext-5-22, Ext-5-26 which confirmed that the said amount was not taken into govt, account by CO. This is further affirmed through Ext-5-8, Ext-S-13 as the said deposits were RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 not reflected in it. This is further corroborated by SW-B in his deposition dated 03.02.20 while answering the modus operandi of fraud committed by CO.
While answering question by 10 in question no.8, the CO admitted that the deposits amounts of Rs.4000/-, Rs.1000/- and Rs 300/- reflected on dtd. 24.07.15, 26.08.15 and 16.09.15 respectively in Ext-5-2 were not reflected in Ext-S-22, Ext-S-26 and were not taken into Govt, account and also he admitted that he committed a mistake by doing SO.
Taking into account the above facts and figures, the charges in article -II is proved beyond doubt.
Article -III
xx xx xx
From the deposition dated 12.09.19 of 5W-2, Ext-5-3 and Ext-5- 4, it is clear that cash deposit of Rs.4000/- was actually took place in Ext-5-4 on 07.08.15. The CO authenticated the deposits in Ext-5-4 by putting the date stamp of Baisinga BO of which he was the sole custodian as admitted during question by
10. The veracity of Ext-5-3 is unquestionable as the SW-4 and SW-8 during their deposition recounted that the contents of Ext- 5-3 is as per the version of SW-2.
From Ext-5-4, Ext-5-22, Ext-5-26 it is clear that the deposit amount of Rs.4000/-reflected on 07.08.15 in Ext-5-4 was not reflected in Ext-5-22, Ext-5-26 which confirmed that the said amount was not taken into govt, account by CO. This is further affirmed through Ext-S-9, Ext-5-14 as the said deposit was not reflected in it. This is further corroborated by SW-8 in his deposition dated 03.02.20 while answering the modus operandi of fraud committed by CO.
While answering question by 10 in question no.9, the CO admitted that the deposits amount of Rs.4000/-reflected on 07.08.15 in Ext-5-4 was not reflected in Ext-5-22, Ext-5-26 and was not taken into Govt. account and also he admitted that he committed a mistake by doing so.
Taking into account the above facts and figures, the charges in article -III is proved beyond doubt.
Article -IV
xx xx xx
Ext-S-10 was obtained by SW-8 in the presence of SW-6. The contents of Ext-S-10 might be contradicted if Sri Abhay Kumar RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 Sahoo, state witness appeared in the inquiry. So he may not have anything to say further about his version mentioned in Ext- 5-10. So the veracity of Ext-5-10 is not questionable. Sri Abhay Kumar Sahoo penned in Ext-5-10-that the balance as on 15.09.15 is Rs.42000/-in Ext-5-18. The CO authenticated the deposits in Ext-S-18 by putting the date stamp of Baisinga BO of which he was the sole custodian as admitted during question by 10. Again from Ext-S-18, Ext-S-23, Ext-5-24, Ext-5-25, Ext-5- 26 it is clear that the deposits amounts of Rs.3000+Rs.30, Rs.1500, Rs.1500, Rs.1500, Rs.1500, Rs.1500, Rs.3000+Rs.30, Rs.1500, Rs.1500, Rs.1500, Rs.9000+Rs.225, Rs.1500, Rs.1500, Rs.6000+Rs.90 reflected on 30.11.2013, 24.12.2013, 22.01.2014, 24.02.2014, 22.03.2014, 16.04.2014, 12.06.2014, 30.07.2014, 30.08.2014, 24.09.2014, 13.03.2015, 29.04.2015, 21.05.2015, 15.09.2015 respectively in Ext-S-18 were not reflected in Ext-5-23, Ext-S-24, Ext-5-25, Ext-5-26 as required which confirmed that the said amount was not taken into govt. account by CO. This is further affirmed through Ext-S- 15 as the said deposits were not reflected in it. This is further corroborated by SW-8 in his deposition dated 03.02.20 while answering the modus operandi of fraud committed by CO. While answering question by IO in question no.10, the CO admitted that the deposits amount of Rs.3000+Rs.30, Rs.1500, Rs.1500, Rs.1500, Rs.1500, Rs.1500, Rs.3000+Rs.30, Rs.1500, Rs.1500, Rs.1500, Rs.9000+Rs.225, Rs.1500, Rs.1500, Rs.6000+Rs.90 were reflected on 30.11.2013, 24.12.2013, 22.01.2014, 24.02.2014, 22.03.2014, 16.04.2014, 12.06.2014, 30.07.2014, 30.08.2014, 24.09.2014, 13.03.2015, 29.04.2015, 21.05.2015, 15.09.2015 respectively in Ext-5-18 were not reflected in Ext-5-23, Ext-5-24, Ext-S-25, Ext-5-26 as required and were not taken into Govt. account and also he admitted that he committed a mistake by doing so. Taking into account the above facts and figures, the charges in article -IV is proved beyond doubt.
Article -V
xx xx xx
Ext-5-21 was obtained by SW-8. The contents of Ext-S-21 might be contradicted if Sri Amresh Behera, state witness appeared in the inquiry. So he may not have anything further to say about his version mentioned in Ext-S-21. So the veracity of Ext-5-21 is not questionable. Sri Amresh Behera penned in Ext- 5-21 that the balance as on 25.08.15 is Rs.9500/- In Ext-5-19. The CO authenticated the deposits in Ext-5-19 by putting the date stamp of Baisinga BO of which he was the sole custodian as admitted during question by 10. Again from Ext-5-19, Ext-5- 24, Ext-5-26 it is clear that the deposits amounts of Rs.500, Rs. RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 500, Rs.1000+Rs.5, Rs.1000+Rs.5 reflected on 23.03.2015, 04.04.2015, 04.06.2015, 25.08.2015 respectively in Ext-5-19 were not reflected in Ext-5-24, Ext-5-26 as required which confirmed that the said amount was not taken into govt. account by CO. This is further affirmed through Ext-S-16 as the said deposits were not reflected in it. This is further corroborated by SW-B in his deposition dated 03.02.20 while answering the modus operandi of fraud committed by CO.
While answering question by 10 in question no.11, the CO admitted that the deposits amount of Rs.500, Rs.500, Rs.1000+Rs.5, Rs.1000+Rs.5 were reflected on 23.03.2015, 04.04.2015, 04.06.2015, 25.08.2015 respectively in Ext-S-19 were not reflected in Ext-5-24, Ext-5-26 as required and were not taken into Govt. account and also he admitted that he committed a mistake by doing so.
Taking into account the above facts and figures, the charges in article -V is proved beyond doubt.
Article -VI
xx xx xx
Ext-5-11 was obtained by SW-B in the presence of SW-6. The contents of Ext-S-11 might be contradicted if Sri Basanta Kumar Sahoo, state witness appeared in the inquiry. So he may not have anything to say further about his version mentioned in Ext- S-11. So the veracity of Ext-5-11 is not questionable. Sri Basanta Kumar Sahoo penned in Ext-5-11 that the balance as on 14.09.15 is Rs.7000/- in Ext-S-20. Sri Sahoo also mentioned in Ext-S-11 that he has deposited Rs.1000+Rs.5, Rs.500, Rs.500, Rs.500, Rs.500 on 05.05.2015, 12.06.2015, 17.07.2015, 13.08.2015, 14.09.2015 respectively in Ext-20. The CO authenticated the deposits in Ext-5-20 by putting the date stamp of Baisinga of which was the sole custodian as admitted during question by 10.
Again from Ext-5-20, Ext-5-24, Ext-S-26 it is clear that the deposits amounts of Rs.1000+Rs.5, Rs.500, Rs.500, Rs.500, Rs.500 shown on 05.05.2015, 12.06.2015, 17.07.2015, 13.08.2015, 14.09.2015 respectively in Ext-5-20 were not reflected in Ext-5-24, Ext-5-26 as required which confirmed that the said amounts were not taken into govt. account by CO. This is further affirmed through Ext-5-17 as the said deposits were not reflected in it. This is further corroborated by SW-8 in his deposition dated 03.02.20 while answering the modus operandi of fraud committed by CO.
While answering question by 10 in question no.12, the CO admitted that the deposits amount of Rs.1000+Rs.5, Rs.500, RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 Rs.500, Rs.500, Rs.500 were shown on 05.05.2015, 12.06.2015, 17.07.2015, 13.08.2015, 14.09.2015 respectively in Ext-5-20 were not reflected in Ext-5-24, Ext-5-26 as required and were not taken into Govt. account and also he admitted that he committed a mistake by doing so.
Taking into account the above facts and figures, the charges in article -VI is proved beyond doubt.
Findings:
On the basis of documentary and oral evidences adduced in the case before me and in view of the analysis and reasons given above, I hold that all the six charges (Article I to VI) against Sri Manas Ranjan Das, Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master Baisinga BO (under put-off duty) in account with Badasuanlo SO are proved beyond any doubt."
3. The applicant submitted his defence to the report of the IO and the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 23.09.2020 imposed the punishment of removal from service by observing as under:
"xxx xxx xxx It is found that the charges against the charged official, which already stand proved and are very grave and serious in nature as the same involved financial misappropriation causing loss to the exchequer, which reflects adversely on the integrity of the charged official.
While deciding the question of awarding the quantum of penalty to the charged official I find that the charged official is guilty of misconduct which is very grave and serious in nature. It has been ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court through various judgments particularly in the case of Lucknow K. Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, U.P. Gramin Bank) & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Singh in C.A. No. 6142/2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10025 of 212) and Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v Krishnan Behari and Others (JT 1996 (3) SC96 (1996) 2 SCC 714) that the case of misappropriation of Government money on the part of a public servant irrespective of amount involved should be dealt with sternly with award of highest penalty under the departmental rules. Keeping this RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 12 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 aspect in view it is considered that the action of the charged official warrants an exemplary punishment which will serve as a deterrent having salutary effect on the officials indulging in such activities of grave and serious in nature.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is hereby ordered that said Shri Manas Ranjan Das, GDSBPM, Baisinga B.O. in account with Badasuanlo S.O. under Dhenkanal H.O. (Now under put off duty) be removed from engagement of GDS with immediate effect."
4. The applicant has also preferred appeal against the aforesaid order of punishment which was considered and rejected by the Appellate Authority and the reasons of rejection was communicated to the applicant in letter dated 03.01.2022.
5. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed this Original Application u/s. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying to quash the charge sheet dated 26.02.2018, report of the IO dated 12.08.2020, order of punishment of DA dated 23.09.2020 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 03.01.2022, inter alia, stating that there is not a single piece of evidence to show that the applicant had received the money from them and that he could not deposit the amount of the depositors since meanwhile he underwent treatment due to his suffering from malady. However, on instruction of Inspector of Post Offices, Kamakhyanagar he, subsequently, deposited the RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 13 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 same. As such, there was no loss to the Government; for which imposition of punishment of removal from service is illegal, arbitrary and is too harsh/disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged offence; more so when there was no loss caused to the exchequer. No ground is raised in the OA relating to violation of any of the provisions of the Rules or infraction of principles of natural justice in conducting and concluding the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him. In course of hearing. learned counsel for the applicant, taking us through the order of DA has submitted that in terms of the Rules it is the Disciplinary Authority who shall impose the punishment whereas in the instant case the Disciplinary Authority ordered that the applicant be removed from engagement of GDS with immediate effect and, thus, the order of DA being not an order of removal from service, applicant is entitled to the relief claimed in this OA.
6. The Ld. Counsel for the respondents by highlighting the historical events of the matter, stated in the counter filed by the respondents, has submitted that interference in the matter of disciplinary proceedings is well settled in a plethora of judicial RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 14 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 pronouncements. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of decisions have cautioned that the judicial review in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee shall not be made in a casual manner and such interference can only be made where it is established that the authority concerned initiated and concluded the disciplinary proceedings in gross violation of the codified rules, infraction of principle of natural justice, prejudicial to the delinquent employee and/or where the conclusion and punishment is based on no evidence. In the instant case, it is stated that the applicant on his own volition deposited the amount, which he had received from the depositors but could make good in the Govt. account whereby he admitted his misdoings. It is stated that the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in a numerical decisions that no loss of revenue is hardly of a matter for imposition of punishment on proved misconduct/misappropriation of govt. money. Insofar as the stand of the applicant that the order of DA cannot be accepted as order of punishment in the eyes of law, it has been stated that this plea cannot be accepted being afterthought because the RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 15 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 applicant himself accepted the order of the DA as punishment and preferred appeal but in the said appeal nowhere he has stated the above point. He also did not avail the opportunity of filing revision taking this as one of the grounds. He has also not stated the above aspect as one of the grounds in this OA. Therefore, the applicant is estopped under law to take this point for the relief. It has also been stated that imposition of removal for proved misappropriation of govt. money cannot be said to be disproportionate/harsh. On the above grounds, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has prayed for dismissal of this OA.
7. After arguing the matter at length by both sides, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Niranjan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha & Another, W.P(C) No. 12658/2017, to substantiate that in case an employee is terminated illegally, he is entitled to full backwages irrespective of whether he was engaged elsewhere during that particular time or not; order of this Bench dated 29.09.2023 in OA No. 403/2023 (Gyana Ranjan Patasani Vs UOI & Ors) to state that putting an ED RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 16 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 Agent under off duty without review within 90 days is illegal and, therefore, the employee concerned is entitled to full TRCA after 90 days; order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P(C) No. 2923/2016 (UOI & Ors Vs Jagbir Singh) to contend that the applicant therein was imposed with the punishment in disciplinary proceedings in violation of the rules of natural justice, which was quashed by the Tribunal and, on challenge, was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court and stated that the present case being one and the same, the applicant is entitled to the relief claimed in this OA; the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dy. Commissioner, KVS & Ors Vs J.Hussain, 2013 AIR SCW 5830, to contend that in the cases where it is found that the punishment is disproportionate to the nature of the charge, the court can refer the matter back to DA to take appropriate view by imposing lesser punishment and, the order of this Bench in OA No. 18/2011 (Akshya Kumar Champati Vs UOI & Ors) to the above effect; the case of Machhindranath Vs Ramchandra Gangadhar Dhamne & Ors, SLP(C) No. 7728/2020 dated 02.06.2025, relating to the claim of recovery of suite land RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 17 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 belatedly to establish that the delay in review of the put off duty and finalization of DP is fatal; the decision in the case of Krishna Rai (Dead) through LRs & Ors Vs. BHU, through Registrar & Ors, 2022 Live Law (SC) 553, to state that if law requires to be done something in a particular manner then the same should be done in that manner only and, if it is not done in that manner then it would have no existence in the eyes of law. He has also relied on various decisions in the same line. Ld. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, opposed the stand of the applicant by stating that none of the decisions has any application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
8. After giving due consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties, perused the records.
9. Before delving into the stand taken and noted above, it is worthwhile to place reliance on a few decisions of the Hon'ble Apex fixing the yardstick for the court/tribunal to make judicial interference in the matter of disciplinary proceedings. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 749, it was held as under:
RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 18 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 "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 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 finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case."
10. In the case of Union of India Vs. P.Gunasekharan, 2015 (2) SCC 610, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
".....In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 19 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022
a) The enquiry is held by a competent authority,
b) The enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf,
c) There is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings,
d) The authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
e) The authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
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 he finding;
i) The finding of fact is based on no evidence."
11. It is not the case of the applicant that there was violation of any of the provisions of the rules or he was prejudiced for non- observation of principle of natural justice. According to the applicant, since he underwent medical treatment due to suffering of Malady, he could not credit the amount of the depositors in the Govt. account, however, he credited the same on being orally instructed by the Inspector of Post Offices. The applicant did not produce any evidence that he was on approved leave during the dates shown to have received the amount from the depositors. Even if it is accepted that he was on leave due to his suffering it was his obligatory duty to make alternative arrangement to RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 20 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 deposit the public money into Govt. account. However, he has admitted that on receipt of oral instruction, he deposited the amount in the Govt. account, which also establishes his oblique motive in not depositing the amount on his own after his recovery from illness. The deposit made by him in the Govt. account itself establishes that he had accepted the amount but did not make good into govt. account, which he did only when the same was unveiled in inquiry. In this connection, we would like to state that once an employee, who is facing disciplinary proceedings for some misconduct, admits guilt, he/she cannot be allowed to turn back and plead violation of principles of natural justice in case any action is taken against him. In the case of Deputy Commissioner, KVS & Ors vs J.Hussain, 2013 AIR SCW 5830, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that where an employee has admitted to an act of misconduct, it will not be unlawful for their employer to impose a penalty upon the employee without conducting an internal disciplinary enquiry into whether the misconduct occurred. In Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. A.L.Mohan Rao, (2006) 1 SCC 63, the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 21 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 the Court should not be guided by misplaced sympathy or continuity ground, as a factor in judicial review while examining the quantum of punishment. It is not the case of the applicant that the charge sheet has been issued by an authority, who is incompetent to do so. On perusal of the record, we find that the IO after giving due opportunity to the applicant, in a well reasoned and speaking report, came to the conclusion finding the applicant guilty. In view of the above, we find no justification to quash the charge sheet or the report of the IO holding the same as illegal or arbitrary in any manner.
12. Coming to the stand of the applicant that none of the depositors had deposed that the applicant had received the amount from them is concerned, it may be recorded that it is not the case of the applicant that the signature with date stamp appearing in the respective passbooks was not his signature nor it is the case of the applicant that his signature and date stamp has been manipulated by any one read with the fact that the applicant had deposited the amount into the Govt. account establishes that the ground stated above is hardly of any weight RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 22 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 to impose the punishment on him on proved misappropriation of depositors/govt. money. Hence, this stand taken by the applicant is hereby rejected.
13. The next stand of the applicant is that there was no loss to the exchequer and hence imposition of punishment is bad in law. In this connection, it is worth mentioning that the applicant, holding the post of trust reposed on him by the department, is required to maintain the highest standards of probity and integrity and is bound to follow the procedures prescribed, which are in the interest of the department. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. - Vs - M.Duraisamy, (2022 (7) SCC 475), had considered the issue in similar lines, where the lapses were tried to be off-set post the disciplinary proceedings and, in the said context, it was held as under :-
"17. Being a public servant in the post office, the delinquent officer was holding the post of trust. 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. What about the loss caused to the department by way of goodwill, name and fame of the department and its reliability amongst the public? By such a misconduct/act on the part of the delinquent officer, the reputation of the department had been tarnished. Therefore, in the facts and RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 23 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 circumstances of the case, both, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have exceeded in their jurisdiction in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and to substitute the same to that of compulsory retirement." (emphasis supplied)
14. Thus, judicial interference in this matter, merely because no loss has been caused to the exchequer since the applicant deposited the entire money, as alleged by him, cannot be a ground to hold that the act of the applicant would not fall within the purview of grave misconduct. Hence, this plea of the applicant, in view of the law, is not accepted.
15. Next contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the order of disciplinary authority cannot be accepted as an order of imposing punishment. Under the rules, it is the Disciplinary Authority to impose the punishment and he cannot direct to any other authority to impose the punishment as has exactly been done in this case. Hence, in absence of any such order, the applicant has been kept away from discharging his duties, which is bad in law. In this regard, we have gone through the order of DA. The DA, in his order, directed that the applicant be removed from engagement of GDS with immediate effect RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 24 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 against which the applicant has submitted appeal accepting the said order as an order of punishment of removal from service. If, according to him, the order of DA is not an order of punishment and in absence of any such order being passed subsequently, the applicant ought to have availed the opportunity by making representation to the DA which he had failed to do rather he submitted appeal to the Appellate Authority accepting the order of DA imposing the punishment of removal from service. In the appeal, he also failed to take this point as one of the grounds. Further, if his appeal was rejected, he should have availed the opportunity of revision by taking this particular aspect of the matter, which he had also failed to do. Nowhere in the pleadings, he has taken this point as a ground before this Bench in the present OA. Be that as it may, we also find that the allegations against the applicant are grave and serious in nature, i.e. misappropriation of money deposited by the poor depositors. Thus, allowing this OA on the above score will entail reinstatement of the applicant into service which means giving him premium, who had been removed from service for proved RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 25 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 misconduct of misappropriation of money of the poor depositors, who having faith on the system and have been keeping their hard earned money in the Post Offices to help them at the time of their need/when they are in old age. Hence, this stand, we are of the considered view, is hardly of any merit at this stage.
16. As a last straw of the camel's back, the stand of the applicant/Ld. Counsel for the applicant is that the punishment of removal from service is too harsh/disproportionate, it is seen that the DA while imposing the punishment had also taken note of this aspect by holding that imposition of punishment of removal on proved misconduct, which are grave in nature, is warranted and in order to support the said decision, he has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Lucknow K. Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, U.P. Gramin Bank) & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Singh in C.A. No. 6142/2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10025 of 2012) and Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v Krishnan Behari and Others (JT 1996 (3) SC96 (1996) 2 SCC
714). Thus, it proved that the DA imposed the punishment of RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 26 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 removal consciously after taking into consideration the gravity of the allegation made and proved against the applicant. Law is well settled that which punishment is to be imposed for which of the allegation is within the domain of the authorities concerned. This view is well fortified by the decision in the case of Prem Nath Bali - Vs - High Court of Delhi, (2015 (16) SCC 415), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :-
"20. It is a settled principle of law that once the charges leveled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinquent employee as per the Rules. The appointing authority, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the charges, findings of the inquiry officer, entire service record of the delinquent employee and all relevant factors relating to the delinquent, exercised its discretion and then imposed the punishment as provided in the Rules.
21. Once such discretion is exercised by the appointing authority in inflicting the punishment (whether minor or major) then the courts are slow to interfere in the quantum of punishment and only in rare and appropriate case substitutes the punishment. Such power is exercised when the court finds that the delinquent employee is able to prove that the punishment inflicted on him is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges thereby shocking the conscience of the court or when it is found to be in contravention of the Rules.
The Court may, in such cases, remit the case to the appointing authority for imposing any other punishment as against what was originally awarded to the delinquent employee by the appointing RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 27 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 authority as per the Rules or may substitute the punishment by itself instead of remitting to the appointing authority."
17. From the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is crystal clear that the power to interfere with the punishment should be exercised only if the delinquent employee is able to prove that the punishment inflicted on him is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges and, thereby, shocking the conscience of the Court or if it is in contravention of the Rules, which are found lacking in the instant case. Hence, this stand of the applicant that the punishment is too harsh/disproportionate to the allegations made/proved against the applicant is hereby rejected. We have gone through the decisions relied on by the applicant but we find that the said cases are of no relevance to the case in hand since the facts and issues involved in those cases are completely different and distinct to the case in hand.
18. The allegations against the applicant are serious and grave in nature involving financial misappropriation of Govt. money. The omission and commission having surfaced during RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 28 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 investigation, the applicant deposited the amount. The IO held the charges proved. The applicant claims that the removal from service imposed by the DA is disproportionate to the gravity of the allegation, in other words, it is an admission on the part of the applicant that he is liable to be imposed with the punishment but not removal. Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. In this regard, it is profitable to place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shyam Telelink Limited vs. Union of India, (2010) 10 SCC 165 wherein, it was observed as under:
"23. The maxim qui approbat non reprobat (one who approbates cannot reprobate) is firmly embodied in English Common Law and often applied by Courts in this country. It is akin to the doctrine of benefits and burdens which at its most basic level provides that a person taking advantage under an instrument which both grants a benefit and imposes a burden cannot take the former without complying with the latter. A person cannot approbate and reprobate or accept and reject the same instrument."
19. In the case of R.N. Gosain Vs. Yashpal Dhir, (1992) 4 SCC 683, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"10. Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 29 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 and reject the same instrument and that "a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid any thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage".
20. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Cauvery Coffee Traders, Mangalore Vs. Hornor Resources (International) Company Limited, (2011) 10 SCC 420, held as under:
"34. A party cannot be permitted to "blow hot and cold", "fast and loose" or "approbate and reprobate".
Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract or conveyance or an order, is estopped to deny the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or conveyance or order. This rule is applied to do equity, however, it must not be applied in a manner as to violate the principles of right and good conscience.
35. Thus, it is evident that the doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel- the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate inheres in it. The doctrine of estoppel by election is one of the species of estoppels in pais (or equitable estoppel), which is a rule in equity. By that law, a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had."
21. On indepth analysis of the facts and issues involved in the instant case, with reference to the law discussed/cited above, we RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.09 09:47:33 +05'30' 30 O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022 find that none of the points raised by the applicant passes the test of the conditions stipulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) and P.Gunasekharan (supra) so as to make judicial interference in the orders impugned in this OA. Accordingly, this OA is held to be without any merit, and, is accordingly dismissed by leaving he parties to bear their own costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2025.10.09 09:47:33
+05'30'