Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
A Rojapoo vs M/O Communications on 17 February, 2026
1 OA/310/01845/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01845/2016
Dated this the 17th day of February, Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA MEMBER(A)
A. Rojapoo,
S/o Arumugam,
Morambukodu,
Konganapuram,
Idappadi,Salem. .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s R. Malaichamy
Vs.
1.Union of India
rep by the Postmaster General,
Western Region (TN),
Coimbatore.
2. The Superintendent of Post Offices
Namakkal Division,
Namakkal.
3. Inspector of Posts,
Sankari Sub-Division,
Sankari Drug RS. .. Respondents
By Advocate Ms. Shakila Ananad
2 OA/310/01845/2016
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) Aggrieved by the penalty order, dated 14.09.2013 issued by the 3 rd respondent, imposing the punishment of removal from service and upheld by the Appellate and Revisionary Authorities, the 2nd and 1st respondent herein, vide their order, dated 31.07.2015 and 24.08.2016 respectively, the applicant has filed the OA for quashing of the said orders and for a direction to reinstate her in service with all attendant benefits.
2. The essential facts which are necessary for adjudication of the case are as follows:
The applicant was initially appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer (GDS MD) at Thangayur Branch Office and was subsequently transferred and posted as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Packer (GDS MP) at Konganapuram Sub Office with effect from 07.05.1986. He submits that one M. Thirunavukkarasu, who was then serving as Sub-Postmaster at Konganapuram S.O., committed misappropriation of depositors' funds in the said Sub Office to the tune of more than Rs. 20 lakhs. Consequently, he was placed under suspension pending contemplation of charges. The said Sub-Postmaster admitted his misconduct and was reinstated into service, with an order directing recovery of nearly Rs. 10,000/- per month from his
3 OA/310/01845/2016 pay and allowances. However, nearly 11 years after the date of the incident, in August 2016, he was dismissed from service. Even thereafter, the entire amount misappropriated from the depositors was not fully recovered from him. Subsequently, a 100% verification of all accounts was conducted at Konganapuram S.O. for the period during which M. Thirunavukkarasu served as Sub-Postmaster. During such verification, a discrepancy was allegedly found in Time Deposit Account No. 31661 standing in the name of Smt. Gunavathi. It is stated that Smt. Gunavathi did not lodge any complaint with the competent authority for about a year, despite being aware of the entry of Rs. 3,000/- in her passbook. However, after completion of the 100% verification, the authorities approached the said depositor and obtained a statement dated 18.07.2006, allegedly with the intention of initiating action against the applicant. In the said statement, Smt. Gunavathi is stated to have claimed that she had entrusted Rs. 8,000/- to the applicant for opening a Time Deposit account in her name. According to the applicant, he had no authority or responsibility to open accounts. He contends that, on the instructions of the Sub- Postmaster, he received the amount from Smt. Gunavathi and was directed to prepare SB-3 and SB-103 forms for opening the Time Deposit account in her name. On 18.07.2005, he inadvertently recorded the amount as Rs. 3,000/- instead of Rs. 8,000/- in her passbook. No complaint was made by 4 OA/310/01845/2016 Smt. Gunavathi at that time regarding the entry of Rs. 3,000/- dated 18.07.2005. However, a statement was allegedly obtained from her on 18.07.2006 with a view to take action against the applicant. Subsequently, a Charge Memo dated 17.11.2009 was issued under Rule 10 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2001, alleging that while working as GDS MP at Konganapuram S.O. on 18.07.2005, the applicant received Rs. 8,000/- from Smt. Gunavathi and issued a receipt only for Rs. 7,000/-. The applicant denied the charge. However, after an inquiry, he was removed from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred an appeal and thereafter a revision petition, both of which were unsuccessful. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking the reliefs stated therein.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any fraud as alleged in the charge sheet. It was contended that the then Sub-Postmaster, Mr. M. Thirunavukkarasu, was responsible for serious financial irregularities, which ultimately resulted in his dismissal from service. Counsel further submitted that, in the applicant's case, the disciplinary inquiry was prolonged for more than five years, during which period the applicant was placed under put-off duty and was subsequently removed from service. It was argued that the applicant 5 OA/310/01845/2016 merely acted in obedience to the directions of his superior. In the course of his duties, he received the amount from the depositor, Gunavathi, filled up the necessary applications, and inadvertently made an entry of Rs. 3,000/- in the passbook. Thereafter, he handed over the passbook and applications to the Sub-Postmaster, who verified and signed the applications and passbook before returning the passbook to the depositor.
4. It was pointed out that the depositor did not lodge any complaint regarding the alleged incorrect entry until the Sub-Postmaster himself brought it to notice. This, according to the learned counsel, demonstrates that the authorities proceeded on an erroneous presumption that the applicant had committed misconduct, which is wholly unjustified.
5. Learned counsel further contended that the Investigating Officer exploited the applicant's innocence and his position and persuaded him to admit the allegations made by the depositor in order to settle the depositor's claim. The applicant, being a poor Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Packer (GDS MP), was not in a position to contest the Sub-Postmaster or the Investigating Officer. Under such circumstances, and in the bona fide belief that he would not be penalized, he gave a statement as directed by the Sub-Postmaster. Accepting moral responsibility, and as instructed, the 6 OA/310/01845/2016 applicant credited a sum of Rs. 1,025/- (Rs. 1,000/- plus Rs. 25/- towards interest) to avoid punitive action. However, to his dismay, he was ultimately imposed with the major penalty of removal from service. It was emphasized that the applicant did not cause any financial loss either to the depositor or to the Department.
6. Counsel also brought to the notice of this Tribunal that the said Sub- Postmaster had misappropriated public funds belonging to depositors of the Post Office to the tune of more than Rs. 20 lakhs. Though he was initially placed under suspension and upon admitting the charges, he was reinstated in service and directed to remit Rs. 10,000/- per month towards recovery. He was removed from service only in the year 2016. In contrast, the applicant was imposed with the extreme penalty of removal from service without any justifiable basis. Such action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice.
7. It was further submitted that the punishment imposed on the applicant is grossly disproportionate to the charge levelled against him. The respondents failed to properly consider this aspect. Moreover, the 7 OA/310/01845/2016 Appellate and Revisional Authorities did not objectively examine the various grounds raised by the applicant in his appeal and revision and mechanically affirmed the order of punishment. In these circumstances, learned counsel prayed that the Original Application be allowed and the reliefs sought therein be granted.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that one Mr. M. Thirunavukkarasu, who was then serving as Sub-Postmaster, Konganapuram Sub Office (SO), had committed misappropriation of depositors' funds to the extent of Rs. 13,41,798.60, in connivance with certain co-workers. The fraud came to light on 16.06.2006, shortly after his transfer to Pallipalayam Agraharam SO on 10.06.2006. He was placed under suspension with effect from 21.06.2006 and was subsequently reinstated in service on 23.08.2011, with an order directing recovery of Rs. 10,000/- per month from his pay and allowances. Upon conclusion of the departmental inquiry, he was removed from service on 08.09.2016. Following the detection of the fraud on 16.06.2006, a 100% verification of all accounts at Konganapuram SO was undertaken. During this verification, a discrepancy was noticed in Time Deposit Account No. 31661 standing in the name of Smt. Gunavathi. The passbook in the depositor's possession reflected a deposit of Rs. 3,000/-, whereas the Post 8 OA/310/01845/2016 Office records showed an amount of Rs. 7,000/-. Upon inquiry, it was revealed that the depositor had handed over Rs. 8,000/- to the applicant, who was assisting the Sub-Postmaster, for the purpose of deposit.
9. It is further submitted that the applicant obtained the depositor's signatures on blank forms and subsequently filled up the account opening form (SB-3), the pay-in slip (SB-103), and the passbook entries. In doing so, he allegedly retained Rs. 1,000/- out of the Rs. 8,000/- entrusted to him and processed the account as though a deposit of Rs. 7,000/- had been made, while recording only Rs. 3,000/- in the passbook. As the depositor was not literate, she did not verify the entries made in the passbook.
10. Upon confirmation of the applicant's involvement, he was placed under "put off duty" with effect from 18.07.2006. A criminal case was also registered against both the applicant and the Sub-Postmaster by the District Crime Branch, Salem, on 27.09.2007 in FIR No. 9/2007 and C.C. Nos. 141/10 and 142/10 under Sections 409, 408, 467, 471 and 477A of the IPC. A charge sheet has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court II, Sankari, and the matter is presently pending trial.
9 OA/310/01845/2016
11. Learned counsel further submitted that, in his statement before Shri M. Madheswaran, then Inspector of Posts, Namakkal West Sub-Division, the applicant admitted to retaining Rs. 1,000/- from the sum of Rs. 8,000/- given by Smt. Gunavathi. He voluntarily remitted Rs. 1,120/- (Rs. 1,000 plus Rs. 120/- towards default interest) under UCR on 02.08.2006.
12. It was also contended that there was nothing arbitrary or illegal in the applicant's removal from service. A charge memorandum under Rule 10 was issued to the applicant vide Memo, dated 15.06.2010 by the Inspector of Posts, Sankaridrug Sub-Division. An Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were duly appointed, and a detailed inquiry was conducted in accordance with Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Upon completion of the inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from engagement vide Memo, dated 24.09.2013.
13. The learned counsel emphasized that the applicant was afforded full opportunity to defend himself in accordance with the applicable rules. It was submitted that a rural depositor, who was unable to read or write and had sought the applicant's assistance in filling out the forms, could not reasonably be expected to verify the entries in the passbook. Shri M. 10 OA/310/01845/2016 Madheswaran, the then Inspector of Posts, had recorded statements from both the applicant and the depositor, and he had no prior acquaintance with either of them. Therefore, the applicant's contention that the statements were obtained improperly or under coercion is unfounded. Similarly, the claim that he gave a statement at the instance of the Sub-Postmaster and Investigating Officer under the belief that he would not be penalized is untenable.
14. In conclusion, it was submitted that the applicant had embezzled public money and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. The penalty imposed was commensurate with the gravity of the charges proved against him in the disciplinary proceedings. For these reasons, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.
15. The applicant has filed a rejoinder to which the respondents have also filed a reply, reiterating their respective contentions made in the OA and the reply statement. The case laws referred to by them were also gone through by us.
11 OA/310/01845/2016
16. Heard the learned counsel on either side at length, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record.
17. For the sake of brevity, the undisputed facts are not reiterated in this order. It is observed that the applicant was afforded reasonable opportunity during the inquiry, in accordance with the applicable rules, to effectively defend his case. During the inquiry, it was established that the applicant had embezzled an amount of Rs. 1,000/-. The misconduct was proved on the basis of the evidence adduced, and the applicant admitted the same during the inquiry. He voluntarily remitted the said amount along with penal interest. By this act, the applicant failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty while working as GDS MP. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report, which was duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority (the 3rd respondent herein), along with the representation submitted by the applicant. The Disciplinary Authority observed that the standard of proof in a departmental inquiry is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. On the basis of the documentary and oral evidence adduced, it was concluded that the applicant had committed fraud in TD Account No. 31661 of Smt. Gunavathi. Considering the serious nature of the misconduct, the Disciplinary Authority ordered the applicant's removal from service with 12 OA/310/01845/2016 immediate effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority, upon examination of the matter, rejected the appeal on the ground that the applicant's act had tarnished the image, goodwill, and reputation of the Postal Department among the public. It was held that the misconduct warranted stringent punitive action and that the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was appropriate. Subsequently, the applicant filed a Revision Petition. The Revision Authority, after due consideration, found no merit in the petition and accordingly upheld the punishment of removal from service.
18. It is pertinent to emphasize that this Tribunal does not function as an appellate authority over disciplinary decisions arising out of departmental proceedings. Its role is limited to examining the manner in which such decisions are arrived at. The primary duty of the Tribunal is to ensure that the delinquent employee has been afforded fair and just treatment in accordance with law. The Tribunal must ascertain whether the inquiry into the alleged misconduct was conducted in adherence to the principles of natural justice and in conformity with the applicable rules and procedures. It must also assess whether the conclusions drawn by the Disciplinary Authority are supported by some evidence and whether the authority conducting the inquiry had the requisite jurisdiction. Interference by the 13 OA/310/01845/2016 Tribunal is warranted only where it is evident that the delinquent employee was subjected to a process inconsistent with statutory rules, or where the findings are based on a perverse interpretation of evidence, or arrived at in the absence of any evidence.
19. It is also to be pointed out that ordinarily, the Tribunal does not interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority unless such punishment shocks the conscience of the adjudicating body. The determination of the appropriate penalty lies squarely within the domain of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities. Neither the Tribunal nor the Court can substitute its own judgment for that of the competent authority in matters relating to the nature or extent of punishment. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authorities is, therefore, very limited and may be exercised only where the punishment imposed is so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Tribunal.
20. Coming to the contention of the applicant that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs A.T.Mane 2005 14 OA/310/01845/2016 (3) SCC 254, on the quantum of punishment for misappropriation of funds. Paragraphs 12 and 13, of the judgment are relevant and are extracted as hereunder:
"12. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment, on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating corporation's fund, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal.
13.This Court in the case of B.S. Hullikatti (supra) held in a similar circumstance that the act was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the respondent therein was not fit to be retained as a conductor. It also held that in such cases there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and thereby interfere with the quantum of punishment."
21. In Divisional Controller, NEKRTC Vs H.Amaresh (2006 (6) SCC
187), the amount said to have been misappropriated was only Rs.360.95. Charges were held as proved. On the quantum of penalty, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "This Court in a catena of judgments held that the loss of confidence as the primary factor and not the amount of money mis-appropriated and that the 15 OA/310/01845/2016 sympathy or generosity cannot be a factor which is impermissible in law. When an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of mis-appropriating a corporation's funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefore with the quantum of punishment. The judgment in Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. B.S. Hullikatti, (2001) 2 SCC 574 was also relied on in this judgment among others. Examination of passengers of vehicle from whom the said sum was collected was also not essential. In our view, possession of the said excess sum of money on the part of the respondent, a fact proved, is itself a mis-conduct and hence the Labour Court and the learned Judges of the High Court misdirected themselves in insisting on the evidence of the passengers which is wholly not essential. This apart, the respondent did not have any explanation for having carried the said excess amount. This omission was sufficient to hold him guilty. This act was so grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to be retained as a conductor because such action or inaction of his was bound to result in financial loss to the appellant irrespective of the quantum."
22. We have carefully considered the applicant's pleadings, the grounds raised, and the materials on record. Based on this review, we conclude that the offence committed by the applicant is likely to adversely affect public perception of the Department's integrity and tarnish its image.
16 OA/310/01845/2016
23. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, and for the reasons stated above, we find no infirmity or illegality in the removal from engagement penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. This penalty has been appropriately upheld by the Appellate Authority and confirmed by the Revisionary Authority.
24. In the result, the Original Application is devoid of merit and it is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(M.L. SRIVASTAVA) (M.SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
17 .02.2026
mas
MA Digitally signed
by M A SUNDAR
SUNDA Date:
2026.03.04
R 13:17:35 +05'30'