om:27-cl-2013-feb — Misappropriation of any amount in the Post Office, even in Branch Post Office by the Postal Staff and in this case by GDS BPM of Bamunpukhuri Branch Office is punishable and the removal from service of the Applicant herein due to the irregularities committed is in order

Misappropriation of any amount in the Post Office, even in Branch Post Office by the Postal Staff and in this case by GDS BPM of Bamunpukhuri Branch Office is punishable and the removal from service of the Applicant herein due to the irregularities committed is in order — The chunk pertains to an O.A. (Original Application) No. 200 of 2011 concerning a GDS BPM from the Bamunpukhuri Branch Office who was accused of misappropriating funds from seven Savings Bank account... — Facts: The Applicant herein, a GDS BPM of Bamunpukhuri Branch Office, Jhanji S.O. under Sivasagar H.O. was kept under suspension due to discrepancy of ₹ 9,403.75 while the Inspector of Posts, Mariani subdivision inspected that Post Office. However, in exercise of powers under Rule GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001, the Superintendent of Post Offices put him under suspension, but it was revoked. The Applicant joined duty on 5-12-2009. The Applicant, before the enquiry committee accepted the irregularities and promised that he will not commit such irregularities thereafter. He committed fraud in respect of seven Savings Bank accounts and nine Recurring Deposit accounts. It is stated that the Applicant committed the fraud from 3-3-2008 to 9-3-2009. The Applicant had filed this OA challenging his removal from service due to the above irregularities. "The Applicant returned the amount totalling ₹ 9,403.75 in three instalments on 13-3-2009, 21-4-2009 and 22-4-2009 and not the full amount immediately on deduction of shortage amount by the Inspector, P.O." states the Respondent. The Applicant was charge-sheeted containing two articles of charge for not maintaining absolute devotion to duty due to misappropriation of fund. The Applicant admitted the charges. The Applicant submits that the punishment is disproportionate and he committed the mistake due to his personal needs. He further submits that as he had already refunded the amount of ₹ 9,403.75, the removal is unwarranted especially when he had completed 24 years of service. He requests for sympathetic consideration of his prayer. The Respondents submit that the Applicant is a habitual offender and he had committed misappropriation of postal amount earlier also but refunded the amount. The Tribunal considered the contentions of both sides. Tribunal noted that the Applicant refunded the amount of ₹ 9,403.75 in three instalments. Records also show that he committed such offence earlier also. The Applicant states that he took the money due to wife's sickness. But the Tribunal does not find that there is mistake on his bona fides as he had committed such offence on several occasions. "Whatever the amount of discrepancy of one fault, if it is intentional then that is a misconduct". To state so, the Tribunal took assistance from the case of Bank of India and others v. S.N. Goyal [ 2008 (2) SCC (L&S) 678 ] of Apex Court and another such decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Mysore and others v. M.C. Krishnappa [ 2011 Vol. 7 SCC 325 ] of Apex Court. In that connection, it was held: