om:95-cl-2018-aug — Depositors deposit their hard earned money in Post Office in small savings as they repose trust that their deposits are safe in India Post being a Government agency. The misappropriation of the money deposited by Postal authorities when detected destroy the faith of depositors shaking the credibility of the Post Office saving bank system. In this case, the Branch Postmaster, a GDS employee, herself misappropriated the small savings deposited by public which amounts to fence

Depositors deposit their hard earned money in Post Office in small savings as they repose trust that their deposits are safe in India Post being a Government agency. The misappropriation of the money deposited by Postal authorities when detected destroy the faith of depositors shaking the credibility of the Post Office saving bank system. In this case, the Branch Postmaster, a GDS employee, herself misappropriated the small savings deposited by public which amounts to fence eating the crop. Hence the Tribunal upheld the punishment of removal granted to the Applicant — Case involving a Branch Postmaster's misappropriation of public deposits in a Post Office savings bank, damaging trust in India Post as a Government agency and impacting the credibility of the Post O... — Facts: Applicant herein is a GDS Branch Postmaster and was removed from service for three Articles of proved charges mentioned in the charge-sheets. It is stated that her appeal against the punishment awarded to her was upheld by Director, Postal Services (R-2) and Chief Postmaster- General, Kerala Circle (R-3), a revisional remedial authority. The present OA is filed challenging the decision of Chief Postmaster- General (R-3) on the ground of not conducting the enquiry from the depositors. PW-5 had no complaint against her. The Enquiry Officer held the enquiry with the whole objective of holding the Applicant as guilty tutored by the seniors of the Enquiry Officer. Hence she filed this OA to reinstate her back into service with all consequential benefits by setting asides the Annexures at A-3, A-5 and A-7. The Respondents state that the deposits of some of the depositors had not been accounted for and the detailed enquiries unearthed serious financial irregularities. The Tribunal after hearing both sides held that “the Tribunal is of the view that non-examination of the depositors is not a material aspect in this case as Annexure-R-1 series letters submitted by the Applicant herself admits her guilt of alleged misconduct. Moreover, failure to deposit the amount in the Post Office account itself speaks that the misconduct mentioned in the Articles of charges has been perpetrated by none other than the Applicant. The malfeasance was detected while postal authorities conducted inspection pertaining to minus balance in some accounts which was followed by a thorough verification of all accounts. Non-examination of depositors as witnesses is not in any way mitigating the misconduct on the part of the Applicant who was then the Branch Postmaster”. Statement of the Counsel of the Applicant in this case is due to pressure of work. But she could have kept that money in a separate account. Instead, she credited the money so recovered back to the Post Office account when the misconduct was unearthed by Inspector of Posts, Neyyattinkara Sub-Division. Failure to record the amounts received in Post Office accounts is a grave mistake. Enquiry by the Enquiry Officer without calling the depositors has not been a vitiating factor affecting the legality of the enquiry because it was quite patent that non-crediting of money received by the Applicant was self-evident.