AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Hon'ble Mr. P. Madhavan, Judicial Member –
This is an Original Application filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:
“(i)To call for the records leading to Annexures A1 to A4 and set aside A1, A2, A3 and A4 orders;
(ii)To declare that the applicant herein is entitled to be reinstated in service with all attendant benefits;
(iii)To issue appropriate direction or order which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit, just and proper in the circumstance of the case;
And
(iv)To award costs to the applicant.”
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The applicant’s case is that she entered the service of Postal Department as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA) and thereafter she was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster (EDBPM) at Vettekad BO under Ottapalam Division. Now the said post is re-designated as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (GDSBPM). While working so, the respondents had placed her under put off duty with effect from 20.11.2010. According to her she was thereafter served with a memo of charges dated 30.6.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent. The applicant submitted a representation on 8.8.2011 to the 2nd respondent denying all charges leveled against her. According to her, the working hours at Vettekad Branch Office (BO) is for four hours. While she was working on 17.11.2010, the cash balance in hand at the closing of working hours was Rs. 15,104.50 paisa. As the Branch Postmaster (BPM) is required to keep the cash at her home after the closing hours of the BO, she kept the cash balance of the BO in her hand bag and kept the bag in her home for safe custody. Her husband is not living along with her for long time but her son an unemployed youth and student was living with her. On the next day morning she went to the BO for duty with her hand bag. In the morning on 18.11.2020, the Mail Overseer came to the BO for checking. The applicant unknowingly tendered the handbag and office cash and stamp box to him for checking. There was a loss of Rs. 15,000/- in the bag. The applicant was not aware of the shortage or loss of amount from the bag at that time. She had no reason to suspect that the cash kept in the handbag would ever be taken away by any one at her home. Since the money was not found she has owed the responsibility for shortage of fund. The Mail Overseer was requested to permit her to go to her house for searching the money, but it was not permitted. In the alternative she suggested that she has a personal SB account at Vettekara BO and it was having more than Rs. 15,000/- in it. She also sought permission to withdraw the amount and pay the same in the shortage. The Mail Overseer telephoned the Inspector of Posts, Mannarkkad Sub Division and informed him about the shortage of cash. The applicant was detained in the office till the Inspector came. The Inspector also asked her to make good the deficiency of cash immediately without going to her house. She was permitted to withdraw the cash from her personal account and she remitted the amount of Rs. 15,000/- which was the shortage. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent ordered to completely verify the earlier transactions done by the applicant during her entire service as GDSBPM. The Inspector of Posts and his team verified the transactions and could not bring out any serious irregularity except the above mentioned deficiency of cash and a stray instance of casual inadvertence of non-accounting of Rs. 100/- in the accounts on 24.3.2010 and another solitary instance of mistake in the totaling of RPLI premium in a RPLI passbook for an amount of Rs. 190/-. A charge memo was issued to the applicant which is produced as Annexure A5. Later, she came to understand that her son had actually taken the amount from her bag without her notice and left the State. It was not with her knowledge. During the inquiry, the senior officers of the Postal Department in the Division had advised her to plead guilty to the charges and pray for mercy for the reason that the deficiency in the cash was made good by her on the very same day and there occurred no loss to the Department. Under these circumstances, she pleaded guilty of the charges in the preliminary hearing of the inquiry itself i.e. on 11.10.2011 with hope that her case would be viewed with mercy and compassion. Owing to the above she was removed from engagement as per order mentioned as Annexure A1. A correction slip was also issued as Annexure A2 since the correct order was ‘removed from engagement’ instead of ‘removed from service’. The inquiry report was produced as Annexure A3. The applicant filed appeal and revision petition wherein the appellate authority and revisional authority upheld the orders passed by the disciplinary authority.
The respondents entered appearance and filed a detailed reply admitting the facts narrated in the OA. They also admitted the fact that the applicant had immediately paid the deficiency amount by taking it from her personal saving bank account. They also admit that on the preliminary hearing itself the applicant admitted all the three charges leveled against her unconditionally. She was given opportunity for personal hearing before the order was passed. The applicant thereafter filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. In revision also the order passed by the disciplinary authority was confirmed. According to them the applicant had temporarily misappropriated the amount and she is guilty of the misconduct. There is also shortage of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 190/- found in the verification conducted thereafter.
Counsel for the applicant would contend that the applicant in this case had kept the money in her bag in her house and on the next date she brought the bag to the BO and when the Mail Overseer came for inspection without any hesitation she handed over the bag to the Mail Overseer for checking. She was not aware of the shortage of the money in the bag. According to the applicant, her son had actually taken the amount from her bag without her notice and left the State. She was not aware of the act of her son and the incident took place. She had immediately replenished the amount lost by taking it from her personal SB account on the very same day. She became GDSBPM in the year 1996 onwards and no act of misappropriation or serious misconduct was reported on her side. The incident alleged in this case had occurred without knowledge of the applicant and when she came to know of the incident she immediately paid the deficient amount to the postal authorities. She had pleaded all these facts during her inquiry and expected that she would be considered leniently. But the disciplinary authority has ordered to remove her from engagement. The appellate authority and revisional authority did not consider her case. According to the counsel for the applicant the punishment imposed on her is highly disproportionate to the misconduct committed and it has to be interfered with.
The counsel for the respondents contended that even though the money was repaid, the misconduct of misappropriation remains and she is liable for punishment ordered in this case.
We have carefully gone through the pleadings and various averments made by the counsel in this case. On going through the facts of the case it appears that the applicant did not actually misappropriated the money as alleged and she was unaware of the removal of the money from her bag by her own son who left the place after taking the amount from her hand bag. It is because of that she directly handed over the bag containing the money to the Mail Overseer for verification. It was only after verification she understood that an amount of Rs. 15,000/- is missing from her hand bag. She immediately replaced the said amount by taking an amount from her personal SB account and it shows the bonafides in this case. There is no provision in the BO for keeping the cash in the office itself. It is the duty of the BPM to safely keep the amount in her custody and accordingly she kept the amount in her bag and kept it in her house safely. It is unfortunate that the said amount was taken by her own son and left the State. The disciplinary authority has not considered these aspects while awarding the punishment of removal from service. These facts were revealed in the inquiry and the disciplinary authority should have taken into consideration the same when the punishment was imposed. We find that the applicant is guilty only for a technical misconduct i.e. not producing the amount when the cash balance was examined by the Mail Overseer. There is no case even for the respondents that the applicant in this case had committed similar misconducts earlier and there is also no case that she had caused loss amounting to substantial amounts. The only other misconduct alleged in this case is that the applicant was found to have not credited Rs. 100/- in the account of one Sarojini and she had also failed to credit a RPLI amount of Rs. 190/- in the month of August, 2010. It has to be noted that the BO was manned by the applicant alone and these mistakes cannot be considered as a grave misconduct. So we find that the removal from engagement ordered by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the applicant in this case.
Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority and remit back the matter to the disciplinary authority for considering the case again in the light of the findings above and pass a suitable punishment. The respondents are directed to pass any other punishment as provided in GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Original Application is disposed of as above. No order as to costs.
Annexure A16- True copy of the extract of Rule 130 of Postal Manual Volume III.
Annexure R1- True copy of inventory prepared on 18.11.2010.
Annexure R2- True copy of the statement of the applicant dated 18.11.2010 with English translation.
Annexure R3- True copy of the UCR receipt along with Request of the applicant dated 18.11.2010 with English translation.
Annexure R4- True copy of the statement of the applicant dated 23.03.2011 with English translation.
Annexure R5- True copy of the statement of the applicant dated 23.03.2011 with English translation.
Annexure R6- True copy of the order dated 23.06.1999.
Annexure R7- True copy of the statement of the applicant dated 11.10.2011 with English translation.
Annexure R8- True copy of the Daily Order Sheet dated 11.10.2011 along with deposition of applicant with English translation.
Annexure R9- True copy of the Branch Office Daily account of Vattekkara BO dated 18.11.2011.
Annexure R10- True copy of the Inquiry Report dated 13.10.2011.
Annexure R11- True copy of extract of Rule 3-A of GDS (Conduct & Engagement Rules).