om:65-cl-2016-jun — Applicant herein, a Branch Postmaster under Osmanabad Postal Division who was charge-sheeted for misappropriation of money received from public is removed from service by the Disciplinary Authorities on examination of records, hearing of witnesses and giving personal hearing to the Applicant. Hence, there is no procedural irregularity in this disciplinary case. The Tribunal can only examine the procedure followed in disciplinary cases conducted by the authorities of departme

GDS Rules

Applicant herein, a Branch Postmaster under Osmanabad Postal Division who was charge-sheeted for misappropriation of money received from public is removed from service by the Disciplinary Authorities on examination of records, hearing of witnesses and giving personal hearing to the Applicant. Hence, there is no procedural irregularity in this disciplinary case. The Tribunal can only examine the procedure followed in disciplinary cases conducted by the authorities of department, but not the decision taken by them based on records and after hearing the witnesses. As the Tribunal found the procedure followed is in order, the OA was dismissed — This chunk is a portion of a court case judgment regarding a disciplinary action taken against a Branch Postmaster for misappropriation of public funds. The postmaster was removed from service after ... — Facts: This is a disciplinary case pertaining to the misappropriation of funds received from public. Hence, the concise judgment need not be very elaborate even though the judgment runs for 42 pages. The Applicant while working as Postmaster under the Superintendent of Post Office, Osmanabad Division (R-1), was charge-sheeted for commuting irregularities for three charges primarily due to misappropriation of money of the public and keeping excess amount under his custody than permitted. The Article of five charges for which he was charge-sheeted is reproduced in the judgment. Even though, based on records, the Applicant was removed from service, the Appellate Authority ordered for a de novo enquiry which also proved the guilt committed by the Applicant. His punishment was upheld by the disciplinary authorities giving full reasoning for doing so. In view of the above, the Applicant had filed the OA against his removal on various counts. The Tribunal heard both parties. It is enough if the reasons which are approved and accepted for removing the Applicant is noted in this concise judgment. The Tribunal noted the orders of the authorities in this disciplinary case and found no evidence of bogus documents having been used to punish the Applicant. The records kept with R-2, Director of Postal Services, have been destroyed after a lapse of 3 years as per the procedure laid down. Record also showed that the Enquiry Officer did not conduct an ex parte as alleged by the Applicant. Non-availability of record did not constitute a sufficient ground for interfering with the orders as opined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal then went on to give examine the enquiry report and perused the CO / DA of xerox copies given by IO personally and observed that there is no need of attestation of those copies. After pursuing the documents, the Tribunal, was satisfied with the enquiry reports. The Tribunal after elaborately examining the documents came to the conclusion that excess cash without any liability had been kept with the Applicant and he has not taken cognizance to remit cash to SO. Hence the say of CO is considered as false. The non-credit of MSEB bill of Shri N.G. Gaikwad, dated 2-4-2004 is noted which has been proved by documentary evidence. The Tribunal then went on to examine the orders passed by R-1 and other Respondents. On perusing documents of PD-3 and PD-4, it came to the conclusion that Appellant accepted the electricity bill amount which are not taken to BO account. Charges are proved on the basis of documents and evidence, adduced during the enquiry. On further examining of the various documents, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Appellant had accepted the electricity bill amount of Shri Nagnath B. Kage, dated 7-4-2004 but the amount had not been credited to BO account. Those documents perused are real and hence the Applicant cannot deny those charges. The order of Director of Postal Services, R-2 herein, in the appeal was issued after full examination of the case. Similarly the order of the Revisionary Authority, R-3 herein, cannot be dismissed as it was done after examining all points of the case and the submission of the Applicant. The merit of the case has been discussed fully by the Revisionary Authority. The submission of R-3 as recorded is reproduced for full clarity and understanding his viewpoints.

GDS Rules

Applicant herein, a Branch Postmaster under Osmanabad Postal Division who was charge-sheeted for misappropriation of money received from public is removed from service by the Disciplinary Authorities on examination of records, hearing of witnesses and giving personal hearing to the Applicant. Hence, there is no procedural irregularity in this disciplinary case. The Tribunal can only examine the procedure followed in disciplinary cases conducted by the authorities of department, but not the decision taken by them based on records and after hearing the witnesses. As the Tribunal found the procedure followed is in order, the OA was dismissed — This chunk is a portion of a court case judgment regarding a disciplinary action taken against a Branch Postmaster for misappropriation of public funds. The postmaster was removed from service after ... — Facts: This is a disciplinary case pertaining to the misappropriation of funds received from public. Hence, the concise judgment need not be very elaborate even though the judgment runs for 42 pages. The Applicant while working as Postmaster under the Superintendent of Post Office, Osmanabad Division (R-1), was charge-sheeted for commuting irregularities for three charges primarily due to misappropriation of money of the public and keeping excess amount under his custody than permitted. The Article of five charges for which he was charge-sheeted is reproduced in the judgment. Even though, based on records, the Applicant was removed from service, the Appellate Authority ordered for a de novo enquiry which also proved the guilt committed by the Applicant. His punishment was upheld by the disciplinary authorities giving full reasoning for doing so. In view of the above, the Applicant had filed the OA against his removal on various counts. The Tribunal heard both parties. It is enough if the reasons which are approved and accepted for removing the Applicant is noted in this concise judgment. The Tribunal noted the orders of the authorities in this disciplinary case and found no evidence of bogus documents having been used to punish the Applicant. The records kept with R-2, Director of Postal Services, have been destroyed after a lapse of 3 years as per the procedure laid down. Record also showed that the Enquiry Officer did not conduct an ex parte as alleged by the Applicant. Non-availability of record did not constitute a sufficient ground for interfering with the orders as opined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal then went on to give examine the enquiry report and perused the CO / DA of xerox copies given by IO personally and observed that there is no need of attestation of those copies. After pursuing the documents, the Tribunal, was satisfied with the enquiry reports. The Tribunal after elaborately examining the documents came to the conclusion that excess cash without any liability had been kept with the Applicant and he has not taken cognizance to remit cash to SO. Hence the say of CO is considered as false. The non-credit of MSEB bill of Shri N.G. Gaikwad, dated 2-4-2004 is noted which has been proved by documentary evidence. The Tribunal then went on to examine the orders passed by R-1 and other Respondents. On perusing documents of PD-3 and PD-4, it came to the conclusion that Appellant accepted the electricity bill amount which are not taken to BO account. Charges are proved on the basis of documents and evidence, adduced during the enquiry. On further examining of the various documents, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Appellant had accepted the electricity bill amount of Shri Nagnath B. Kage, dated 7-4-2004 but the amount had not been credited to BO account. Those documents perused are real and hence the Applicant cannot deny those charges. The order of Director of Postal Services, R-2 herein, in the appeal was issued after full examination of the case. Similarly the order of the Revisionary Authority, R-3 herein, cannot be dismissed as it was done after examining all points of the case and the submission of the Applicant. The merit of the case has been discussed fully by the Revisionary Authority. The submission of R-3 as recorded is reproduced for full clarity and understanding his viewpoints.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text