om:11-cl-2019-Jan — The two member Guwahati Bench of the Tribunal differed in granting the punishment to the Applicant in the case of misappropriation of ₹ 9,17,625 from the Savings Bank Account holders. Judicial member while setting aside the order of removal of the Applicant ordered for lesser punishment, whereas the Administrative member agreed with the order of removal from service by the Respondents. Hence it was referred to a third member to decide the quantum of punishment only, w

The two member Guwahati Bench of the Tribunal differed in granting the punishment to the Applicant in the case of misappropriation of ₹ 9,17,625 from the Savings Bank Account holders. Judicial member while setting aside the order of removal of the Applicant ordered for lesser punishment, whereas the Administrative member agreed with the order of removal from service by the Respondents. Hence it was referred to a third member to decide the quantum of punishment only, who agreed with the Disciplinary Authority to remove the Applicant from service — This chunk pertains to an Original Application (OA) No. 040/00370 of 2014, filed by a GDS Postmaster challenging the penalty of dismissal from service due to misappropriation of savings bank account ... — Facts: Applicant herein, a GDS Postmaster, filed this OA challenging the penalty of dismissal from service. Judicial Member directed the Respondents, Disciplinary Authority to impose a lesser punishment commensurate to the offence whereas the Administrative Member agreed with the Respondent's order of removal of the Applicant from service. In view of the difference of opinion by the two member Bench, the case was referred to a third member. Applicant agreeing with Judicial Member stated that he being not well conversant with rules and guidelines of Postal Department, it was not a case of misappropriation of money and only a case of not maintaining proper accounts in the Post Office. Counsel for the Respondents after narrating the misappropriation of Saving Banks Accounts holders argued the order of dismissal as an appropriate punishment. Applicant argued for not giving him opportunity during the disciplinary proceeding and also the disciplinary proceedings started in the year 2011 completed in 2013 when the misconduct took place during the years 2001 to 2007. But the Respondents arguing against the submission of Applicant's Counsel stated that for the misappropriation of huge money, FIR was lodged on 5-2-2007 and the criminal case is still pending. Further as the employee was absconding, there was delay in the disciplinary proceedings. The third Member held: