om:57-cl-2018-May — This is a case of temporary misappropriation for 2 days only. The Applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster, was finally punished by Revisional Authority by removing him from service for the offence committed by him. The Tribunal held that the conclusion arrived at by the Revisional Authority in punishing the Applicant is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of charges. Hence the case was remitted back to Revisional Authority to examine the case afresh and order

GDS Rules

This is a case of temporary misappropriation for 2 days only. The Applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster, was finally punished by Revisional Authority by removing him from service for the offence committed by him. The Tribunal held that the conclusion arrived at by the Revisional Authority in punishing the Applicant is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of charges. Hence the case was remitted back to Revisional Authority to examine the case afresh and order suitable punishment as per law and gravity of charges within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. — This chunk is part of a court case involving a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster who was temporarily misappropriating funds for two days. The case was reviewed by a Tribunal, which found that the pu... — Facts: The Applicant, a gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster in Bardoli Division was working therein from 8-5-1991. During the verification of Accounts under his control, late credit of amount collected of electricity bills for 1 to 4 days amounting to ₹ 7,69,025 was detected. Out of this ₹ 7,08,845 was towards DGVCL bills and ₹ 60,180 towards BSNL telephone bills. The Applicant was put off duty by Inspector of Post Office for the above misappropriation for 1 to 4 days and a charge-sheet was issued by the Disciplinary Authority namely, Superintendent of Post Offices by Order, dated 16-12-2009. The Applicant fully co- operated in the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 10 of GDS (C & E) Rules, 2001. Inquiry Officer held that charges are not proved.
Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of Inquiry Officer and punished him with removal from service following extant instructions. On appeal, the Appellate Authority ordered converting the major penalty of removal into minor penalty of debarring from recruitment in Group 'D' Cadre for three years. Accordingly, the Applicant was reinstated in service.
Postmaster-General, Vadodara undertook a suo motu review by issuing a show-cause notice for converting the Appellate Authority's order to that of dismissal. Following rules, the penalty of dismissal was ordered by Order, dated 27-9-2011. Applicant preferred a Review Petition against this order to President of India result of which was not heard. Hence he filed the present OA is to set aside the penalty of removal from service with all consequential benefits, treating the period of put-off duty / removal from 1-1-2009 to 7-3-2011 and dismissal from1-10-2011 to till reinstatement as duty with all consequential benefits. The contention of the Applicant is that, Revisional Authority travelled beyond the scope of Rule 19 of GDS (C & E) Rules, 2001 by revising Appellate Authority's order. The mention of ₹ 6.96 lakhs as misappropriated does not find a place in the charge-sheet. Revisional Authority's order is time-barred as it is beyond the period of 6 months of the orders of Disciplinary Authority. Honourable CAT, Hyderabad Bench declared in T.A. No. 18 of 2009 held that the period of suspension of an employee is to be treated as on duty if the major charges levelled ends in imposition of minor penalty. Delay in filing this OA was also condoned. The order of Revisional Authority which is time-barred is examined by the Tribunal and held that the Revisional Authority was within the time-frame mentioned in the Rule. Reducing the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, the appeal was allowed on ground that misappropriation had not been proven in the due process of inquiry. That revelant para. reducing the punishment is reproduced.
Orders of Appellate Authority had been rejected by Postmaster- General, Vadodara which order is reproduced. Appellate Authority discounted the sum of ₹ 6.96 lakhs to a much smaller amount and emphasized delay of only 1 or 2 days in depositing the amount in Government account. The Revisional Authority is carried away by his opinions about the State of General Administration in the Department.
"Tribunal in general do not interfere in the penalty awarded in disciplinary proceedings and it has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the Authority. Whenever punishment imposed is out of all proportion to the alleged misconduct, the focus is to examine the issue closely. In the case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India [ 1987 (4) SCC 64 ], it was emphasized that "all powers have legal limits" invokes the aforesaid doctrine". If the punishment, even if outrageous but as per law then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Citing judicial interference in the case of Union Bank of India v. Tulsiram Patel [ Air 1985 SC 1416 ], judicial inteference is warranted when penalty imposed is "arbitrary or grossly excessive".
Taking into account above views and details it was held:

GDS Rules

This is a case of temporary misappropriation for 2 days only. The Applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster, was finally punished by Revisional Authority by removing him from service for the offence committed by him. The Tribunal held that the conclusion arrived at by the Revisional Authority in punishing the Applicant is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of charges. Hence the case was remitted back to Revisional Authority to examine the case afresh and order suitable punishment as per law and gravity of charges within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. — This chunk is part of a court case involving a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster who was temporarily misappropriating funds for two days. The case was reviewed by a Tribunal, which found that the pu... — Facts: The Applicant, a gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster in Bardoli Division was working therein from 8-5-1991. During the verification of Accounts under his control, late credit of amount collected of electricity bills for 1 to 4 days amounting to ₹ 7,69,025 was detected. Out of this ₹ 7,08,845 was towards DGVCL bills and ₹ 60,180 towards BSNL telephone bills. The Applicant was put off duty by Inspector of Post Office for the above misappropriation for 1 to 4 days and a charge-sheet was issued by the Disciplinary Authority namely, Superintendent of Post Offices by Order, dated 16-12-2009. The Applicant fully co- operated in the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 10 of GDS (C & E) Rules, 2001. Inquiry Officer held that charges are not proved.
Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of Inquiry Officer and punished him with removal from service following extant instructions. On appeal, the Appellate Authority ordered converting the major penalty of removal into minor penalty of debarring from recruitment in Group 'D' Cadre for three years. Accordingly, the Applicant was reinstated in service.
Postmaster-General, Vadodara undertook a suo motu review by issuing a show-cause notice for converting the Appellate Authority's order to that of dismissal. Following rules, the penalty of dismissal was ordered by Order, dated 27-9-2011. Applicant preferred a Review Petition against this order to President of India result of which was not heard. Hence he filed the present OA is to set aside the penalty of removal from service with all consequential benefits, treating the period of put-off duty / removal from 1-1-2009 to 7-3-2011 and dismissal from1-10-2011 to till reinstatement as duty with all consequential benefits. The contention of the Applicant is that, Revisional Authority travelled beyond the scope of Rule 19 of GDS (C & E) Rules, 2001 by revising Appellate Authority's order. The mention of ₹ 6.96 lakhs as misappropriated does not find a place in the charge-sheet. Revisional Authority's order is time-barred as it is beyond the period of 6 months of the orders of Disciplinary Authority. Honourable CAT, Hyderabad Bench declared in T.A. No. 18 of 2009 held that the period of suspension of an employee is to be treated as on duty if the major charges levelled ends in imposition of minor penalty. Delay in filing this OA was also condoned. The order of Revisional Authority which is time-barred is examined by the Tribunal and held that the Revisional Authority was within the time-frame mentioned in the Rule. Reducing the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, the appeal was allowed on ground that misappropriation had not been proven in the due process of inquiry. That revelant para. reducing the punishment is reproduced.
Orders of Appellate Authority had been rejected by Postmaster- General, Vadodara which order is reproduced. Appellate Authority discounted the sum of ₹ 6.96 lakhs to a much smaller amount and emphasized delay of only 1 or 2 days in depositing the amount in Government account. The Revisional Authority is carried away by his opinions about the State of General Administration in the Department.
"Tribunal in general do not interfere in the penalty awarded in disciplinary proceedings and it has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the Authority. Whenever punishment imposed is out of all proportion to the alleged misconduct, the focus is to examine the issue closely. In the case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India [ 1987 (4) SCC 64 ], it was emphasized that "all powers have legal limits" invokes the aforesaid doctrine". If the punishment, even if outrageous but as per law then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Citing judicial interference in the case of Union Bank of India v. Tulsiram Patel [ Air 1985 SC 1416 ], judicial inteference is warranted when penalty imposed is "arbitrary or grossly excessive".
Taking into account above views and details it was held:

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text