ups_00538 — No public servant may be allowed to evade accountability, nor should non-performance of duties be excused under judicial review. Any leniency shown in activities involving financial loss is a misplaced sympathy

No public servant may be allowed to evade accountability, nor should non-performance of duties be excused under judicial review. Any leniency shown in activities involving financial loss is a misplaced sympathy — A civil court case involving an employee (the Applicant) who was a Gramin Dak Sevak, accused of cash shortage in his branch post office and subsequently penalized, including being barred from recruit... — Facts: The Applicant joined the Postal Department as an Extra Departmental Delivery Agent on 8-4-1991 and was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster on 8-10-1999 and served as such for 25 years without any blemish. During an inspection on 3-8-2012, a cash shortage of ₹ 3,000 was discovered. Despite his denial, the 5th Respondent by Order, dated 30-7-2014, imposed a penalty debarring him from MTS recruitment for a period of three years. Later, the 4th Respondent issued a notice, dated 29-1-2015 proposing to enhance the penalty to removal from engagement. But the Applicant did not respond to the notice promptly. On 29-4-2016, without any further notice or enquiry, the 4th Respondent passed the order of ‘removal from service'. The Applicant filed O.A. No. 869 of 2016 which was disposed of by the Hon'ble Tribunal directing him to submit a detailed representation to the 4th Respondent. Despite submission, the representation was rejected on 16-9-2016. His revision petition, dated 4-6-2016 to the second Respondent was also rejected on 22-12-2016. Aggrieved, the Applicant filed the present OA seeking relief. The learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that on 3-8-2012, during inspection of the Branch Post Office by the 6th Respondent, the Applicant was engaged in handing over postal articles to the Postman. While counting stamps and cash, the Applicant explained that he had withdrawn ₹ 3,000 from his POSB account and produced the withdrawal slip. The 6th Respondent instructed him to complete the payment details and properly account for the amount, which he did. Thus, there was no misappropriation or financial loss to the department. The learned Counsel for the Applicant further submitted that he had already been penalized with a three-year debarment from consideration for Group ‘C' posts due to this incident and that the subsequent enhanced penalty of removal from engagement was without proper justification and there was no proper application of mind. The learned Counsel for the Applicant further contended that the 3rd and 4th Respondents failed to provide valid reasons for enhancing the punishment and such action was arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to established service jurisprudence and Supreme Court precedents. The Applicant therefore sought relief as prayed for in the OA. Citing the inspection report of 3-8-2012 submitted by the 6th Respondent, which recorded a cash shortage of ₹ 3,000, the learned Counsel for the Respondents opposed the Applicant's claims. A follow-up report, dated 6-8-2012 stated that the shortage was made good by the Applicant through a withdrawal from his SB account, undermining his credibility. While the Applicant denied the charges in his reply, dated 5-10-2013 to the charge-memo, he allegedly admitted them during a preliminary inquiry held on 19-5-2014. Based on the report of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty on 30-7-2014 debarring him from MTS (Group ‘C') recruitment for three years. Subsequently, the 4th Respondent issued a show-cause notice, dated 29-1-2015 proposing enhancement of the penalty, to which the Applicant did not respond. The penalty was therefore enhanced to removal from engagement and his appeal was also rejected on 9-11-2016. The learned Counsel for the Respondents emphasized that the orders passed by the 3rd and 4th Respondents are valid and do not warrant interference and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the OA.