Shri Pruthvi Y.J. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)

The applicant has filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that he joined as GDS on 15.06.2016 in the Postal Department on being appointed on compassionate grounds. The applicant has studied SSLC and a diploma and hails from a very backward area. The Branch Office Yagatti Village Post Office come under Malnad area and has to cater to nearby villages of Sumanahalli, B.M.Koppal, Sannaki Koppalu, Somanahalli Tandya, Lakshmipura Mallagatta, S.Kodihalli and Rangenahalli. The applicant claims that he cannot cover all the villages each day and whenever a number of articles are received to be delivered to a particular village, the applicant would go to that particular village. On 24.09.2019 the applicant collected the eMOs payable cash and with an intention to pay the eMOs of Sumanahalli he carried the money order amount required by him and balance of Rs.13,900/- was kept in his house. At about 2 pm, the Inspector of Birur Sub Division called the applicant over phone and asked him as to where he was at that time. The Inspector directed the applicant to come to the Sub Office as he was visiting the Branch Office. He asked the applicant to account the unpaid cash, paid to him on that very day for paying to the addressees of money orders and the applicant informed the Inspector that the said amount is kept in his house. In fact he has accounted the same the very next day. The applicant has also accepted the same before the Inquiry Officer. On 25.09.2019, the 5^th Respondent passed an order placing the applicant under put-off duty on the ground that a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated against the applicant. Thereafter, a charge memorandum was issued by the 4^th Respondent alleging four article of charges. The Inquiry Officer submitted the report holding that all the charges as proved since the applicant unequivocally, unconditionally and voluntarily admitted all the charges. Agreeing with the same, the Disciplinary Authority issued the penalty order dated 27.03.2020 imposing the penalty of removal from engagement with immediate effect. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 18.09.2020 and the same was served on the applicant on 22.09.2020. Thereafter, the applicant preferred yet another appeal on 11.10.2021 to the 3^rd Respondent but the same was rejected informing that there is no further provision under the GDS (C&E) Rules, 2020 to reconsider, as his appeal has already been rejected. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

Learned Counsel Shri B.S.Venkatesh Kumar representing the applicant submitted that during the course of inquiry, the applicant wanted to highlight his defence but both the IO and the PO did not permit him to say anything and coerced to admit the charge promising that if he admitted the charges, he would be let off and if he does not heed them, then he would have to face consequences. As such the applicant accepted the charges under coercion but unfortunately the IO solely on the basis of admission of guilt has held, the charges as proved and the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the penalty of removal from engagement, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Inviting the attention of the Bench to the documents placed by the respondents along with the reply statement, submitted that the applicant was made a scapegoat assuring lesser penalty if the charges are accepted and later on took the same as the ground for passing a major penalty order of removal from engagement. Inviting our attention to Annexure R3-complaint of Kum.Kavya S.B., learned Counsel submitted that the complaint alleged by one Kum.Kavya S.B., daughter of Ms.Geetha K.G. is dated 14.05.2019 and the same pertains to the subject dated 11.06.2019. In the said complaint the allegation was that registered letter dated 11.06.2019 was not delivered to Kum.Kavya S.B. The Postal seal on the letter is dated 18.10.2019. It is surprising that the complaint is alleged on 14.05.2019 of non-delivery of letter dated 11.06.2019 whereas the seal available is dated 18.10.2019 and the statement of Kum.Kavya S.B. was recorded on 26.10.2019. It is only with an intention to fix the applicant, complaint which suffers from ambiguities was relied on. The statement taken by the applicant on coercion, cannot be a ground to issue the penalty order of removal from service.

Learned Counsel further submitted that there is a delay of 375 days in filing this OA not 769 days as stated by the respondents in their reply statement. The said delay has been explained satisfactorily and is required to be condoned. The respondents have accepted the workload of the applicant as narrated by him as to how he has to cater to seven villages and cannot cover all the villages in one day. That being so, the allegation of lacking in devotion to duty raised and held to be proved, is not correct. There has been no misappropriation or negligence on the part of the applicant. The shortfall of Rs.13,900/- was made good the very next day that too because he had left the money in his house not being aware that the Inspector would be visiting the Sub Office and would demand. It is the usual practice of Postmen working in remote areas not to carry all the cash to every village and they would take only so much money as is required to be paid to the addressees of the village to which they visit. Therefore, there is a total non-application of mind and lacunae in conducting the inquiry proceedings. The other two charges namely, No.2 and 3 relate to non-delivery of one speed post article and other ordinary postal articles. These articles pertain to different villages and it is highly impossible to go to each village on the very same day for delivery of those articles issued. Hence articles marked to be delivered to different villages would be delivered on the days on which the applicant goes to a specific village. As regards the fourth article of charge, inasmuch as non-maintenance of visit book, learned Counsel submits that the applicant had shifted his room in the same village and the old book was left behind in the old house and when a request was made, the applicant was informed to keep a new book and that was the reason the village visit book had not been made up to date. These aspects would have been considered by the authorities in a proper perspective. On the contrary, imposing the grave punishment of removal from engagement, is totally disproportionate and warrants interference of this Tribunal.

Learned Counsel Shri S.Prakash Shetty representing the respondents referring to the reply statement filed, submitted that during the surprise visit by the Inspector of Posts, Birur Sub Division, Birur to Somanahalli BO under Singatagere SO on 24.09.2019, it was noticed that 53 ordinary postal letters, 9 registered articles, 5 speed post articles were kept undelivered. All the registered as well as speed post articles were shown as delivered to addressees and kept them in applicant’s bag. Further on verification, it was noticed that out of Rs.90,000/- cash issued towards payment of eMOs, the applicant had returned eMO paid vouchers for Rs.42,600/- and eMO unpaid cash of Rs.33,500/-, resulting in short return of cash to the tune of Rs.13900/- . On enquiry into the same, the applicant had informed that due to receipt of huge number of eMOs, he had taken the paid eMO vouchers to his home for making list of such eMOs, which he forgot to bring back to the B.O. As such, the applicant was directed to submit the paid eMO vouchers to BPM on next day. On 25.09.2019, Mail Overseer, Birur Sub Division, Birur visited Somanahalli BO for further investigation. During that time the applicant failed to return the eMO paid vouchers which he had informed the previous day and also failed to return the cash of Rs.13,900/-. After the closing hours of the Branch office on 25.09.2019, the said shortage of unpaid cash of Rs.13,900/- was charged under Unclassified Payment (UCP)in the daily account dated 25.09.2019.

Eleven unregistered articles received on previous dates were kept undelivered without any remarks. These letters were taken into custody by Inspector Posts, Birur Sub Division and sent out for delivery through Mail Overseer Birur Sub Division on 25.09.2019. A complaint was also received from Kum.Kavya S.B. D/o Ms.Geetha K.G., Somanahalli regarding non-receipt of registered post article dated 12.06.2019. The inquiry into the complaint revealed that the said article was received at Singatagere S.O on14.06.2019 and invoiced to Somanahalli B.O., on the same day. In the delivery manifest dated 14.06.2019 invoiced to Somanahalli BO, the said article was listed at Sl.No.9 and shown as delivered with a signature mentioned against the said article. But the said article was not delivered to the correct addressee. Hence the same was delivered through Mail overseer, Birur Sub Division on 26.10.2019 to the addressee -Kum.Kavya S.B. In the statements recorded - Annexure R4, Kum.Kavya S.B. stated that she was expecting a registered post from Karnataka State Nursing Council, which was regarding her job appointment and very much essential. The said registered post was posted on 12.06.2019 and not delivered to her till 26.10.2019 by the applicant. Mail Overseer of Birur visited her house and delivered the letter on 26.10.2019.

During the past work verification, it was noticed that the applicant failed to produce village visit book for verification. Upon verification of the Postman book maintained by the applicant , it was found that entries for the period from 29.03.2019 to 28.06.2019 were not maintained. The applicant was placed under put of duty. Thereafter, proceeded under Rule 10 of Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011. During the preliminary inquiry the applicant admitted that the article of charges in unconditional terms. After completion of inquiry, report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer holding all the charges proved. The applicant submitted his representation, wherein he pleaded his guilty. The Respondent No.4 considering the gravity of offence passed the order of penalty of removal from engagement with immediate effect. The same has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal. The applicant has voluntarily credited the amount of Rs.13,900/- to UCR vide Annexure R2 dated 26.09.2019. In addition to cash shortage, the applicant involved in both non-delivery of registered and unregistered articles. Every Government official is governed by certain set of rules for discharging their duties. Every village Postman must keep a Postman book in Form MS.27, in which he/she should enter the particulars of money orders and other articles entrusted to him for payment or delivery. Before proceeding to his beat, the village Postman must carry visit book and signature of the Headman of the village, to be obtained in it. The reasons put forth by the applicant for not maintaining the Postman book and visit book is not acceptable. The submission of the applicant that he was coerced to admit the charges before the inquiry authority is an afterthought. The inquiry was conducted as per procedure and every possible opportunity was provided to the applicant to defend his case. The applicant has put in less than four years of service and in the short span of service, he exhibited his lack of integrity. By his acts, the applicant tarnished the image of the Department. The applicant having admitted the articles of charge unconditionally and crediting the amount of Rs.13,900/- eventually to the account of the Department, is estopped from challenging the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty order imposed, confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the applicant, has decided the matter as per the settled principles and prescribed rules. Hence the OA deserves to be dismissed.

We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

Statement of Article of charges vide charge memorandum dated 22.01.2020 issued to the applicant reads thus:

During surprise visit by the Inspector of Posts, Birur Sub Division, Birur to Somanahalli BO under Singatagere on 24.09.2019, it was noticed that Rs.90,000/- was issued towards payment of eMOs, but the applicant had returned eMO paid vouchers for Rs.42,600/-and eMO unpaid cash of Rs.33,500/- only, resulting in short return of cash to the tune of Rs.13,900/-. On enquiry into the same, the applicant had informed that due to receipt of huge number of eMOs, he had taken the paid eMO vouchers to his home for making list of such eMOs which he forgot to bring back to the BO. On 25.09.2019, Mail Overseer, Birur Sub Divsiion, Birur visited Somanahalli BO for further investigation, the applicant failed to return the paid eMOs vouchers and also failed to return the cash of Rs.13,900/-. However, after the closing hours of Branch Office on 25.09.2019, the said shortage of unpaid cash of Rs.13,900/- was charged under UCP in the daily account dated 25.09.2019. The applicant in his statement dated 25.09.2019 given before the Mail Overseer, Birur Sub Division, Birur has stated that he had not returned the remaining amount of Rs.13,900/- and he do not have the said amount to return, that he will credit the amount on the next day. The applicant has admitted the said charge vide his letter dated 04.03.2020 placed before the Inquiry Officer during the preliminary hearing dated 04.03.2020. The said letter is marked as Annexure R5 to the reply statement. In the said letter, the applicant has specifically stated that after taking sufficient time, he pleads guilty voluntarily, unequivocally, unconditionally and admitted all the charges levelled against him in the Charge Memorandum dated 22.01.2020. Accordingly, he requested the inquiry authority to stop the inquiry at that stage. Similarly, vide letter dated 20.03.2020 (Annexure R6), the applicant has admitted that he has not maintained Postman book and visit book at Somanahalli BO and kept eleven undelivered letters and 16 registered articles with him and the same were delivered on 26.09.2019 in the presence of Mail Overseer. Article of Charge Nos.2 and 3 relate to non-delivery of registered post article and other ordinary post articles. Article of charge No.4 relates to non-maintaining of village visit book and Postman book. As all the four article of charges were admitted voluntarily and unconditionally with a request to the Inquiry Officer to stop the inquiry at that stage vide his letter dated 04.03.2020, the Inquiry Officer has given the finding that all the article of charges (1 to 4) stand proved beyond doubt. There being nothing surviving for further inquiry, the Inquiry Officer has rightly come to the said conclusion.

The applicant having not submitted any representation in response to the memo of charges and on the preliminary sitting of the inquiry conducted on 04.03.2020, admitting all the article of charges voluntarily and unconditionally, now cannot plead that the said statement was taken under coercion. Further on the inquiry report submitted and forwarded to the applicant to make representation or submission on the said inquiry report, the applicant vide his representation dated 20.03.2020 has further admitted all the article of charges but claims that it was a mistake and the same may be excused with an assurance that he shall be careful and does not repeat such irregularities in future, pleading to allow him to continue to work as GDS ABPM. Considering the gravity of offence, Disciplinary Authority has issued penalty order of removal from engagement with immediate effect. Appellate Authority has provided reasonable opportunity to the applicant to defend himself though the appeal was time barred. Even in the personal hearing provided to the applicant, no documentary evidence or any material has been placed to substantiate his innocence. As such no fault can be found with the impugned orders.

Coming to the discrepancies in the complaint lodged by Kum.Kavya S.B.(Annexure R3) regarding the date of complaint vis-à-vis allegation to non-delivery of the registered post dated 11.06.2019 and the seal dated 18.10.2019, in our opinion, the same would not nullify non-delivery of registered articles by the applicant as required under the rules. The statement of Kum.Kavya S.B. was recorded on 26.10.2019 which indicates that the registered letter relating to the employment posted on 12.06.2019 was received by her on 26.10.2019 from the Mail Overseer at her house by obtaining her signature. Whatever may be the date of the complaint, it cannot be disputed that the said registered article was received by the applicant in the month of June, 2019 (14.06.2019) but the same was not delivered to the addressee. Applicant to cover up his mistake cannot bank upon the weaknesses of the complainant inasmuch as the dates in the complaint are concerned. Once all the article of charges levelled against the applicant were duly admitted before the Inquiry Officer on 04.03.2020 vide letter dated 04.03.2020 and further before the Disciplinary Authority vide letter dated 20.03.2020 without giving any representation against the inquiry report, supplement to that, not providing any documents/material before the Appellate Authority to establish the coercion or threat alleged to have been made against the applicant, we cannot accept the same at this stage, merely on assertion not supported by any concrete material evidence. It is just an ipse dixit statement of the applicant. On the other hand, no procedural irregularities in conducting the disciplinary proceedings has been pointed out.

The cognate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.458/2024 dated 16.10.2025 (Miss Poornima Suresh Shedgeri and Union of India and others), considering identical issue referring to catena of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, held that nature of work of Postman and Bank is the same in relation to the money transactions. Thus, it is clear that no leniency can be shown to the Post office or Bank employee when charges against him have been proved in the disciplinary proceedings.

It is trite that maintaining absolute integrity is paramount especially, when the postal service handles public money, valuable goods and sensitive documents. The principle of strict punishment when an employee of Department of Posts is found guilty of misconduct, particularly involving fraud, embezzlement or breach of trust, leniency is generally discouraged. The Hon’ble Apex Court and the other judicial forums have consistently ruled that in cases of financial irregularities or misappropriation of public funds, the only appropriate punishment is typically dismissal or removal from service. Courts have emphasized that the actual amount misappropriated does not matter, whether the fraud involved is small or large sum, the loss of confidence in employee is total. Sympathy of the past clean record cannot be proven to mitigate the dishonesty.

In Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah v. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SCC 605, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

In State Bank of India v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde, (2006) 7 SCC 212, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:

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 to the post office or Bank employee when grave charges against him have been proved in the disciplinary proceedings.

It is significant to note that MA No.389/2023 is filed by the applicant for condonation of delay of 428 days in filing the OA. Though in the said miscellaneous application itself it is stated in different paras differently regarding the number of days as 375 days in para -2 and 366 days in para-4, in the reply statement filed on behalf of the respondents to the said MA, it is stated that the present OA is filed after a lapse of 769 days. The Appellate Authority has passed the order on 18.09.2020 and this OA is preferred before this Tribunal on 30.10.2023. In the rejoinder filed by the applicant it has been admitted that the delay is only 375 days ignoring one year from 22.10.2021, if the delay is counted from 22.10.2021. Be that as it may, the applicant having suffered the order of removal from engagement, confirmed by the Appellate Authority, ought to have been taken swift action to challenge the said orders. Laxity on the part of the applicant is ex-facie apparent. In our considered view, no sufficient cause is shown for condoning the inordinate delay in approaching this Tribunal. Period of Covid-19 cannot be taken as a shelter to remove all the ill-wills of the applicant.

For the reasons aforesaid, OA stands dismissed. All pending MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.