ups_00780 — The Tribunal at Bangalore refused to interfere with the punishment of removal inflicted on the Applicant herein, who had worked as GDSD BPM Kabbal BO, who admitted his charge and the punishment granted to him is not so severe to prick conscience of the members of the Tribunal

The Tribunal at Bangalore refused to interfere with the punishment of removal inflicted on the Applicant herein, who had worked as GDSD BPM Kabbal BO, who admitted his charge and the punishment granted to him is not so severe to prick conscience of the members of the Tribunal — The given chunk pertains to an Original Application (O.A. No. 350 of 2013) filed by a GDSD BPM Kabbal BO at Sathanur SO, Channapatna Division against his removal from service, due to non-adherence to... — Facts: The Applicant herein while working as GDSD BPM Kabbal BO at Sathanur SO, Channapatna Division was removed from service against which this OA is filed. Applicant kept quite as receipt of the punishment and after 135 days he filed this petition for setting aside the order of his removal and reinstate him in service. The Applicant could not produce the disciplinary proceeding documents and the punishment order to challenge the punishment. His attempts also failed to get the documents by filing RTI application. Due to the peculiar circumstances, his MA to condone delay was allowed and delay condoned. The Applicant was issued with a charge-sheet containing four Articles of charge. All the four articles relate to acceptance of deposit from public and not accounting the same thereby he failed to adhere to the procedure outlined in Rule 131 of Rules for Branch Offices. Thus he failed to maintain devotion to duty enjoined in Rule 21 of the Department of Posts, GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001. On receipt of charge-memo, the Applicant filed his reply. An enquiry was conducted wherein he admitted the charges levelled against him but pleaded mercy in punishing him. However, the Disciplinary Authority considered the case and as per powers vested under GDS (C&E) Rules, 2001 imposed the penalty of removal. The reasons given due to which the punishment was imposed is on account of his adverse integrity in devotion to his duties. The removal order is dated 30-11-2010. The Tribunal after going through the disciplinary proceedings satisfied with the procedure and awarding punishment. The Applicant did not file appeal but revision petition was filed by him. "The revisional authority after considering the ground of revision under his powers vested on him under Rule 29 of GDS (C&E) Rules, 2001 confirmed the punishment. In view of the procedure followed as per rule the Tribunal found no error an infirmity or illegality in the orders of the Revisional Authority". In that connection, the Tribunal relied on the case of Chairman and Managing Director, V.S.P. and others v. Goparaju Shri Prabhakara Hari Babu [ 2008 (2) SCC (L&S) 311 ] wherein it was held that superior courts will interfere in some D&A cases if the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of charges or the disciplinary proceeding was conducted de hors the rules.