SHRI. SUNIL R. LAMANI vs UNION OF INDIA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17286-DB
WP No. 105363 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020155162025


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

WRIT PETITION NO 105363 OF 2025 (S-CAT)

BETWEEN:

SHRI. SUNIL R. LAMANI S/O. RAMAPPA R. LAMANI,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: EX-GDS BPM,
R/O: GUNJAVATI, A/W MUNDAGOD SIRSI POSTAL,
DIV: SIRSI – 581 402,
RESIDING AT OBALAPURA SLT
OBALAPUR POST – 591 123,
TQ: RAMDURGA, DIST: BELAGAVI.





…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. UNION OF INDIA,
R/BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPT. OF POST, DAK BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI – 110 001.






Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
2. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL,
KARNATAKA CIRCLE,
BENGALURU – 560 001.

3. POST MASTER GENERAL N. K. REGION,
DHARWAD – 580 001.
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICERS,
SIRSI POSTAL DIVISION, SIRSI – 581 402.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI BY QUASHING OR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
BY CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU DATED

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17286-DB
WP No. 105363 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020155162025

23/10/2024 IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NUMBER 170/00331/2023
VIDE ANNEXURE-M IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B
GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

ORAL ORDER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
(PER: )


1. The petitioner is before the Court calling in question
an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short) in Original
Application No. 170/00331/2023 .

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Anant P Savadi for
the petitioner and learned counsel Sri. Sanjay S Katageri for
the respondents.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The petitioner is appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak-GDS on
21.04.2012. After about 7 years of service as GDS, the
petitioner was found to have misappropriated the amount that
the general public would come and deposit in the bank or
render the money to his hands. Based upon this, on
28.10.2019, the charge memo was issued. An Enquiry Officer
was then appointed to conduct the enquiry. In reply to the

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17286-DB
WP No. 105363 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020155162025

charge memo, the petitioner is said to have admitted the
allegations and sought that a lenient view be taken against him
in the light of the said admission. Therefore, further enquiry
was not conducted and a penalty of removal from service was
imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by
the imposition of penalty of removal from service, approaches
the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in terms of its order dated
23.10.2024, rejects the application. The rejection of the
application has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject
petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri.
Anant P. Savadi would vehemently contend that once the
enquiry proceedings are commenced by issuance of the charge
memo, it should be taken to its logical conclusion, whether the
delinquent employee admits the allegation or does not admit
the allegation, there cannot be a shortcut to imposition of
penalty of removal from service against the petitioner and what
the petitioner has admitted is not an unequivocal admission,
but it was an explanation to the circumstance and sought the
respondents to take a lenient view. Therefore, he submits that

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17286-DB
WP No. 105363 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020155162025

the enquiry may be directed to be conducted against the
petitioner on the charges and the charges to be taken to its
logical conclusion.

5. The learned counsel Sri. Sanjay S Katageri
appearing for the respondents would vehemently refute the
submission that there was no necessity of conduct of an
enquiry in the teeth of the admission of the petitioner of the
allegations. The allegations were grave. They are of
misappropriation of funds belonging to the public, who deposit
the monthly postal amount into their respective accounts in the
Post Office. Therefore, he would seek dismissal of the petition.

6. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.

7. The position of the petitioner is not in dispute. A
charge memo comes to be issued against the petitioner seeking
to hold a departmental enquiry. While the conduct of
departmental enquiry was to commence on 24.01.2024, the
petitioner admits the guilt. The admission of the guilt of the
petitioner does not suffer from any equivocity, it is unequivocal.
Articles 1 to 3, in total, Rs.12,850/- was not credited to the

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17286-DB
WP No. 105363 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020155162025

amount belonging to different depositors and he had used the
said amount for his personal problems. The petitioner admitted
that he has cheated the Postal Department and the Account
Holders and is willingly giving the said letter of admission. If
this is the tenor of the letter of admission of the petitioner, it is
ununderstandable as to what enquiry was to be held against
him in the teeth of complete admission of all Articles 1, 2 and
3. The Tribunal in the challenge passes the following order:
“ This OA has been filed on 13.07.2023, for the
quashment of removal order (Anx –A7) and the revisional
order
(Anx A-10). The relief claimed in Para 8 of the OA are as
under:
‘i) Quash office of the superintendent of post
offices, Sirsi Dn, Sirsi -581402 Memo No. F-
4/1/Gunjavathi/SRL/2018 dated: 10-03-2020, vide
Annexure-A7 issued by respondent No.4.
ii) Quash O/O Post Master General, N.K. Region,
Dharwad580001 Memo No. NKR/VIG/Pet/804/ 2021
dated: 15-11-2021 Annexure-A10 issued by
respondent No.3.
iii) Quash 0/0 chief Post offices, Sirsi Dn, Sirsi-
581402 Memo No.F-4/1/Gunjavathi/SRL/2018
dated: 28-09-2018 vide Annexure-A2. – Issued by
Respondent No. 4. Consequently direct the
respondents to reinstate the applicant in service,
with all consequential benefits.
iv) Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the
facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest
of justice and equity.’

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17286-DB
WP No. 105363 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020155162025

2. In this case at the time of final argument on
17.10.2024, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that he does not want to challenge this OA upon other grounds
except the ground of quantum of punishment. Therefore,
arguments were heard only upon the quantum of punishment
in this case.
3. It is admitted facts that the applicant was
provisionally engaged as Gramin Dak Sevak vide order dtd.
27.04.2012 (Anx – A1). The applicant was placed under put off
duty vide order dtd. 05.07.2018 (Anx- A2). TRCA as ex-gratia
was sanctioned time to time vide order dtd. 14.06.2019 (Anx-
A3) and vide order dtd. 05.09.2019 (Anx-A4). Thereafter, a
charge sheet dtd. 28.10.2019 (Anx A-5) was issued. The
applicant accepted the charges in writing on 24.01.2020.
Therefore the inquiry officer submitted his report upon which
after following the due procedure the order Anx-A7 dtd.
10.03.2020 was passed and by the aforesaid order the
applicant was “removed from engagement” with immediate
effect. The applicant preferred the revision on 19.07.2021
(Anx-A9) and the revisionary authority also dismissed the
revision vide order dtd. 15-11-2021 (Anx-A10).
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
applicant that some leniency was required in the punishment
but the punishment of removal has been awarded by the
concerned authority which is not justified. Looking to the
nature of misconduct and the other circumstances lesser
punishment should be awarded. The applicant voluntary
accepted the charges and he deposited the amount also.
Therefore, he was entitled for some leniency.
5. On the other side, the respondents’ counsel
oppose the contention and submitted that looking to the
mischief/misconduct committed by the applicant, proper
punishment has been awarded. The applicant played with the
faith of general public. Therefore, no leniency was required.
6. Whether the proper punishment has been
awarded or not? For this purpose the charge sheet should be
seen. The charge sheet (AnxA5) contains three articles of
charges which are as under:
‘‘Article – I

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17286-DB
WP No. 105363 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020155162025

That the said Sri. Sunil R Lamani GDS BPM
(POD) Gunjavathi BO A/W Mundgod SO under Siri
HO, while working as GDS BPM Gunjavathi BO,
during the period from 20-04-2012 to 05-07-2018,
did not account the deposit of Rs. 6000/- (Rupees
six thousand only) in respect of BS account number
3425572244 pertaining to Smt. Farzana Rivaz
Jamadar into BO accounts on different dates. ie. Rs.
2000/- each on 20-01-2018, 20-02-2018 and 20-
03-2018. These transactions were entered in said
Passbook and date stamp of Gunjavathi BO dated
20-01-2018, 20-02-2018 and 20-03-2018 were
impressed, but he did not take this amount into PO
accounts.
By this alleged act, he has violated the Rule 124,
129 (m), 132 (f), 133 (2), and 134 of Rules for
Branch Offices (Eighth Edition, corrected up to 28
September, 2007) and there by failed maintain
absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required
for him under rule – 21 (i) & of Department of Posts
GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2011.
ARTICLE-II
That the said Sri. Sunil R Lamani, GDS BPM (POD)
Gunjavathi BO A/w Mundgod SO under Sirsi HO,
while working as GDS BPM Gunjavathi BO, during
the period from 20-04-2012 to 05-07-2018, did not
account the deposit of Rs. 6250/-(Rupees six
thousand two hundred fifty only) in respect of SB
account number 0752448165 pertaining to Sri.
Bikku B Lambar into BO accounts on different dates,
ie. Rs. 5550/-on 12-02-2018, Rs. 200/- on 21-02-
2018 and Rs.500/- on 26-02- 2018. These
transactions were entered in said Passbook and date
stamp of Gunjavathi BO dated 12-02-2018, 21-02-
2018, 26-02-2018 were impressed, but he did not
take this amount into PO accounts.
By this alleged act, he has violated the Rule-124,
129 (m), 132 (f), 133 (2), and 134of Rules for
Branch Offices (Eighth Edition, corrected up to 28th
September, 2007) and there by failed to maintain
absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17286-DB
WP No. 105363 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020155162025

of him under Rule- 21 (i) and (ii) of Department of
Posts GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2011.
ARTICLE-III
That the said Sri. Sunil R Lamani, GDS BPM (POD)
Gunjavathi BO A/w Mundgod SO under Sirsi HO,
while working as GDS BPM Gunjavathi BO, during
the period from 20-04-2012 to 05-07-2018, did not
account the deposit of Rs. 600/-(Rupees six hundred
only) in respect of RD account number 0752534435
pertaining to Sri. Shahil Riyaz Jamadar into BO
accounts on different dates ie. Rs 200/- each on 20-
01-2018, 20-02-2018 and 20-03-2018. These
transactions were entered said Passbook and date
stamp of Gunjavathi BO dated 20-01-2018, 20-02-
2018 and 20-03-2018 were impressed, but he did
not take this amount into PO accounts.
By this alleged act, he has violated the Rule-124,
129 (m), 132 (f), 133 (2), and 134 of rules for
Branch Offices (Eighth Edition, corrected up to 28th
September, 2007) and there by failed to maintain
absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required
of him under Rule - 21 (i) & (ii) of Department of
Posts GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2011.”
7. The details also annexed with the charge sheet. It
appears that the applicant collected the amount from general
public and issues the receipts upon the passbook with the date
stamp etc. But the applicant did not deposit the amount in the
Government fund. He misused the aforesaid amount.
8. In letter dtd. 24.01.2024 (Anx- R2) the applicant
admitted the charges. It is stated in the aforesaid letter “The
said in above article, I, article II, article III total Rs.12850/- of
non credited amount belonging to different depositors used for
my person use. By this I admit that I have cheated Postal
Department and account holders. I am giving this statement in
writing willingly without coming under any pressure during
inquiry. I admit all the charges levelled on me in the SPOS
Sirsi memo no F-4/1/Gujavati/SRL/2018 dated at Sirsi the 28-
10-2019 in article-I, article-II, article-III during inquiry without
any pressure.”

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17286-DB
WP No. 105363 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020155162025

9. It is submitted by the applicant that he deposited
the amount Rs. 43,950 towards the settlement of the claim.
The respondents’ counsel in his counter reply mentioned that
the applicant committed the misappropriation of Rs 39,250.
The claims of each account holder were settled in favour of
depositors with appropriate interest. Because the amounts
were not deposited by the applicant therefore, the depositors
were entitled the interest from the date on which they
deposited the amount and the receipt was issued by the
applicant in their favour. In the case of Union of India V/s M.
Duraiswami 2022 (2) All India Service Law General 473. The
Supreme Court said on 19.04.2022 that merely because
subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded
amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the
department, cannot be ground to take a lenient view and/or to
show undue sympathy in favour of such employee. Therefore,
the applicant was not entitled for any sympathy upon the
ground of depositing the amount of misappropriation.
10. The approach of the Courts, in dealing with cases
of bank and Post office employees, who are responsible for
doing the banking work or money transactions with General
public, and found accused of serious charges, is very different.
The bank/Post-office officials are expected to discharge their
duty with utmost integrity and honesty in view of the nature of
their duties and functions, involving large financial transactions
and public money. Courts deal with such employees with
utmost strictness as they are expected to work with highest
degree of trustworthiness. In respect of delinquent bank
employees a distinct jurisprudence has developed.
11. In Chairman and Managing Director, United
Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
“14. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher
standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with
money of the depositors and the customers. Every
officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all
possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank
and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity,
honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing
which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good
conduct and discipline are inseparable from the
functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17286-DB
WP No. 105363 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020155162025

As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary
Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari
Patnaik (1996) 9 SCC 69, it is no defence available
to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in
case, when the officer/employee acted without
authority. The very discipline of an organization
more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of
its officers and officers acting and operating within
their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority
is by itself a breach of discipline and is a
misconduct.”
12. In Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah v.
Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SCC 605, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held as under:
“10. If the charged employee holds a position of
trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt
requirements of functioning, it would not be proper
to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in
such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where
the person deals with public money or is engaged
in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary
capacity, highest degree of integrity and
trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable….”
13. In State Bank of India v. Ramesh
DinkarPunde, (2006) 7 SCC 212, it was held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
“21. Confronted with the facts and the position of
law, learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that leniency may be shown to the respondent
having regard to long years of service rendered by
the respondent to the Bank. We are unable to
countenance with such submission. As already said,
the respondent being a bank officer holds a position
of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt
requirements of functioning and it would not be
proper to deal with the matter leniently. The
respondent was a Manager of the Bank and it needs
to be emphasised that in the banking business
absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty
needs to be preserved by every bank employee and
in particular the bank officer so that the confidence

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17286-DB
WP No. 105363 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020155162025

of the public/depositors is not impaired. It is for
this reason that when a bank officer commits
misconduct, as in the present case, for his personal
ends and against the interest of the bank and the
depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands and
he does not deserve to be dealt with leniently.”
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Mohan
Vs. Union of India and others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3392,
said that in respect of delinquent bank employees a distinct
jurisprudence has developed. The court relied upon aforesaid
cases of Chairman and Managing Director, United
Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364,
Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah v. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3
SCC 605, and State Bank of India v. Ramesh DinkarPunde,
(2006) 7 SCC 212and observed:-
“81. Therefore, the approach of the Court towards
a bank employee against whom charges of serious
financial misconduct has been proved by the
Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate
Authority, after a reasoned order based on material
evidence, should not be lenient and must be dealt
in a strict manner. Unless violation of principles of
natural justice, inter alia, is said to have been
proved by the Petitioner causing prejudice to the
Petitioner in his defence, the Court should not
interfere in the concurrent findings by the
authorities below.”
15. Nature of work of post office and Bank is the
same in relation to the money transactions. Thus, it is clear
that no leniency can be shown to the post office or Bank
employee when grave charges against him have been proved
in the disciplinary proceedings. It has been held that courts do
not interfere with quantum of punishment, unless there exists
sufficient reasons. The punishment imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority cannot be subjected to judicial review unless it
shocks the conscience of the Court. In the case of State of
Meghalaya and Others Vs Mecken Singh N.
Marak,(2008) 7 SCC 580 = 2008(6) SLR 461 (SC) it has
been held:-
“14. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the
scope for interference is very limited and restricted

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17286-DB
WP No. 105363 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020155162025

to exceptional cases. The jurisdiction of the High
Court, to interfere with the quantum of punishment
is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient
reasons. The High Court, although has jurisdiction
in appropriate case, to consider the question in
regard to the quantum of punishment, but it has a
limited role to play. It is now well settled that the
High Courts, in exercise of powers under Article
226, do not interfere with the quantum of
punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons
therefor. The punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority
unless shocking to the conscience of the court,
cannot be subjected to judicial review. In the
impugned order of the High Court no reasons
whatsoever have been indicated as to why the
punishment was considered disproportionate.
Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice.
The mere statement that it is disproportionate
would not suffice.
15. While considering the question of
proportionality of sentence imposed on a delinquent
at the conclusion of departmental enquiry, the
court should also take into consideration, the
mental set-up of the delinquent, the type of duty to
be performed by him and similar relevant
circumstances which go into the decision-making
process. If the charged employee holds the position
of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt
requirements of functioning, it would not be proper
to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct, in
such cases has to be dealt with iron hands.”
16. As per the article of charges, the applicant
collected the amount on different dates from the different
depositors. The amount was collected for deposit in their
saving or RD accounts. The applicant was working as GDS
BPM. He also entered the aforesaid transactions in the
passbooks of each depositor with date stamp etc. but he did
not take the amount into post office account. Therefore, he
cheated with the general public and also played with the
faith of general poor public. The public having faith upon the
post office and believe that their amount will be safe in the
hand of concerned employee and he will deposit the amount

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17286-DB
WP No. 105363 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020155162025

in the account of account holders. But the applicant did not
perform his duties honestly. Looking to the number of
charges and the number of transactions the applicant was
not entitled to any sympathy. He was not appointed through
a regular recruitment. He was engaged initially as
provisional engagement person. Therefore, in view of this
Tribunal proper punishment has been awarded. This type of
employees should be removed from service because strict
honesty is required in the conduct of the employee who
deals with public transactions.
17. Hence, the OA having no any force therefore
dismissed. ”


8. The Tribunal captures the admission of the
petitioner and holds that the approach of the Courts in dealing
with the cases of Bank and Post office employees, who are
responsible for doing a banking work or money transaction with
general public, if found to have misappropriated the amount of
such general public, must deal it with high hand. The petitioner
is a Gramin Dak Sevak, to whom poor account holders would
hand over money to be deposited to their respective postal
accounts. If this is not deposited and said humble depositors
would be cheated by such Gramin Dak Sevak, it is
ununderstandable as to how this Court would excise its
jurisdiction to obliterate the proceedings showing any amount
of lenience. In the light of the admission, there was no
necessity of any enquiry to be conducted against the petitioner.

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17286-DB
WP No. 105363 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020155162025


9. Insofar as the judgments relied on by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, plethora of them are all inapplicable
to the fact situation. Those judgments of the Apex Court or
otherwise are all distinguishable on the facts obtaining in the
case at hand without much ado. Therefore, referring to the
paragraphs which the learned counsel for the petitioner would
only bulk our judgment without notwithstanding the fact that
they are inapplicable to the fact situation.

10. There is no warrant of interference with the well
reasoned order of the Tribunal. Finding no merit in the petition,
the petition stands dismissed .



Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE



Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE

JTR
CT:ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32