om:44-cl-2017-Apr — The Applicant herein, a GDS BPM, Koydam, was charged with misappropriation of ₹ 12,000 deposited in National Savings Scheme. Enquiries conducted revealed that the misconduct of the Applicant betrayed the trust of the public with Postal Department. Hence, he was punished by removal from service which was upheld by the Tribunal. The inference in this case is that, cheating or mismanaging the public money brings dispute to the Government and hence punishable

The Applicant herein, a GDS BPM, Koydam, was charged with misappropriation of ₹ 12,000 deposited in National Savings Scheme. Enquiries conducted revealed that the misconduct of the Applicant betrayed the trust of the public with Postal Department. Hence, he was punished by removal from service which was upheld by the Tribunal. The inference in this case is that, cheating or mismanaging the public money brings dispute to the Government and hence punishable — This is a court case regarding an employee (GDS BPM Koydam) who was charged for misappropriation of funds deposited in National Savings Scheme while working at the Postal Department. The case involve... — Facts:The Applicant herein, was appointed as GDS Delivery Agent of Bhatpur Branch (P.O.) on 1-4-1997 and later as GDS Branch Postmaster to Bhatpur Branch Office. On 12-8-2008, he was put off duty and reported to Bhatpur B.O. as GDS Delivery Agent on 1-12-2008. He was issued with a charge-sheet under GDS ( C&E) Rules, 2001 on 1-12-2008. On the basis of an enquiry, the charges were proved and hence he was removed from service as GDS DA. His revision petition to PMG was also rejected. Hence, he filed OA No. 302 of 2010 in CAT, Ahmedabad Bench. CAT by Order, dated 2-8-2011 remanded the matter back to department for deciding the petition of the Applicant, dated 25-2-2010 on merits. The Applicant's petition was rejected by PMG, Vadodara.

The Applicant submitted his petition once again on the ground that he could have made a bona fide mistake due to pressure of work. He further submitted that punishment is harsh and he approached the Tribunal to set aside his punishment of removal after exhausting all avenues available to him.

The Respondents refuted the Applicant's counsel submission. The Tribunal carefully looked into the case. The Tribunal noted the Apex Court judgment in the case of Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M Lad [ 2010 (5) SCC 775 ]. In that case, it was held that while undertaking the Judicial Review of the matter, the Court should not substitute its own opinion of appraisal of facts. In all cases of removal,dismissal and compulsory retirement, hardship would result. That would not mean in a given case, punishment of removal can be discarded by Tribunal states the Counsel for Respondents.

Quantum of punishment to be awarded rests with the Disciplinary Authority. That view is supported in the case of Charanjit Lamba v. Commanding Officer [ 2010 (11) SC 314 ]. The said observation is reproduced in the judgment.

On scrutiny, it was found that the charges of misappropriation of ₹ 12,000 in respect of various RD Accounts of unsuspecting account holders are proved.

The Tribunal once again remanded the case to PMG for examining the Revision Petition and issue a "reasoned speaking order”. PMG re-examined the disciplinary matter once again and rejected the Revision Petition vide Memo, dated 27-10-2011

The Tribunal noted the misappropriation of ₹ 12,000 in 10 RD Accounts, the number of RD accounts, amount of misappropriation, permanent and temporary totalling ₹ 3,400 + 8,600 = ₹ 12,000 is brought out in the judgment It was held: