BHEMANGOUDA K POLICE PATIL vs DEPTT OF POSTS

1 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NOS.170/00440/2023


ORDER RSERVED ON: 09.10.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 29.10.2026


CORAM
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON’BLE DR.SANJIV KUMAR ...MEMBER(A)


Shri Bhemangouda K. Police Patil,
S/o Kallanagouda Police Patil,
Aged about 59 years,
Occ: Branch Post Master,
R/at Chikenakoppa,
Kukanoor SO,
Tq. Yelburga,
Dist. Koppal-583232. …Applicant

(By Advocate Shri Hemanarendra C.H.)

Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Gadag Division,
Gadag Tq & Dist. 582101.

2. The Post Master General,
North Karnataka Region,
Dharwad Tq & Dist. 580001.

S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.30
16:54:43+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

2 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

3. The Post Master,
Head Post Office,
Jawahar Road,
Koppal Tq & Dist. 583231.

4. The Post Master General,
South Karnataka Region,
Bengaluru-560032.

5. The Director Postal Services (HQ),
O/o CPMG Karnataka Circle,
Bengaluru,
Authorized to exercise Statutory Powers of the DPS,
North Karnataka Region,
Dharwad Tq & Dist. 580001. ...Respondents

(By Senior Central Government Panel Counsel Shri Sayed S.Kazi
for Respondents No.1 to 5)


ORDER
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)

The applicant has filed this original application under Section
19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following
reliefs:
“(a) That the impugned order passed by
Respondent No.5 dated 24.03.2023 bearing Memo
No.NKR/VIG/APPEAL/065/2022 Annexure-A1 may be set
aside in the ends of justice.
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.30
16:54:43+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

3 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

(b) That necessary directions be issued directing
Respondent No.1 to continue with service of Applicant in
the ends of justice.

(c) That any other reliefs deemed fit in the circumstances
of the case be granted.

(d) That the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1
dated 21.10.2021 in Memo No.GDG/F/V1/03/
Chikkenakoppa BO/2019-20, Annexure A5, may be set
aside in the ends of justice.”


2. Facts in brief are that the applicant while working as
Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) at Branch Office Chikkenakoppa, which
is coming under Sub Division at Koppal, was issued with charge
memo dated 21.04.2021 which culminated in the order of
compulsory discharge from his engagement with monetary benefits
(i.e., SDBS etc.) and GDS Gratuity, proportionate to engagement
period vide order dated 21.10.2021. Being aggrieved, the applicant
preferred Writ Petition No.104892/2021 before the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The said Writ Petition was
dismissed vide order dated 08.11.2022 observing that the Writ
Petition is not maintainable for not exhausting the alternative remedy
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.30
16:54:43+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

4 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

of appeal available under the Rules. However, liberty was reserved
to avail the alternative remedy and Respondent No.3 was directed to
release the gratuity and other benefits, if not already released, if the
petitioner is legally entitled to, within the time frame fixed. Pursuant
to which the applicant has preferred an appeal unsuccessfully before
the Appellate Authority. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed
this OA.

3. Learned Counsel Shri Hemachandra C.H., representing the
applicant submitted that the Respondent No.1 without following the
due procedure of law in conducting the inquiry,
discharged/terminated the applicant from service vide impugned
termination order dated 21.10.2021. Learned Counsel further
submitted that the nature of the work of the GDS is to book the
money order, allowing customers to open savings account, recurring
deposits, register rural postal life insurance and book registered AD.
The applicant had the responsibility to book the articles from the
Branch Post Office, Chikkenakoppa and forward it to Sub Office
Kuknoor for further course of action. The Inspector of Posts, Koppal
Sub Division, has inspected the office of the applicant on 30.12.2019
and submitted report on 10.01.2020 alleging administrative
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.30
16:54:43+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

5 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

irregularities against the applicant to which the applicant has given
sufficient explanation. The same has not been properly appreciated
by the Respondent No.1 in passing the impugned order of
termination. The reasons recorded by the Respondent No.1 that the
applicant has accepted the charges levelled against him, is untenable
for the reason that the said statement was taken under threat and
pressure. Hence seeks for interference of this Tribunal.

4. Detailed reply statement has been filed on behalf of the
respondents. Learned Counsel Shri Sayed S. Kazi representing the
respondents submitted that it was reported by the Inspector of Posts,
Koppal Sub Division that on his surprise visit to Chikkenakoppa BO
a/w Kuknoor SO on 10.10.2019, he noticed that the closing balance
of the Branch Post Office dated 10.10.2019 was Rs.87,384/- but the
applicant had produced cash amounting to Rs.37,384/- only and
produced unaccounted eMO paid vouchers worth Rs.10,200/-. It
was stated by the applicant that due to technical problems eMO paid
vouchers could not be charged to BO accounts and hence they were
retained at BO as a part of office cash. As regards difference of
amount of Rs.39,800/- in office cash, the applicant had taken the
defence that eMO paid vouchers amounting to Rs.39800/- were sent
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.30
16:54:43+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

6 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

to Kuknoor Post Office for resolving technical issues. On inquiry
SPM Kuknoor SO confirmed that no such eMO paid vouchers were
handed over by the applicant to him. No acknowledgement of SPM
Kuknoor SO for having received such eMO paid vouchers or any list
of such eMO paid vouchers stated to be sent to Account Office, were
produced either by the applicant or retained as office copy. Due to
shortage of cash to the extent of Rs.39,800/- which was charged to
UCP on 11.10.2019 at Chikkenakoppa BO and on perusing the case
details, the work conduct and integrity of the applicant not being
found satisfactory, he was placed under off duty with effect from
17.02.2020. The applicant has not returned the BO furniture,
documents and other valuable assets to the department on his
termination of engagement, as such a complaint was lodged against
the applicant in Kuknoor Police Station under Crime No.24/2023
dated 28.02.2023. Thus justifying the impugned order of termination
of the applicant, confirmed by the Appellate Authority, learned
Counsel seeks for the dismissal of the OA.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the
learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on
record.
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.30
16:54:43+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

7 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH


6. Factual aspects are not in dispute. The articles of charge
issued vide charge memo dated 21.04.2021 to the applicant reads
thus:
“ARTICLE-I
That the said the Bheemanagouda K Policepatil, GDS BPM
(POD) Chikkenakoppa BO a/w Kuknoor SO under Koppal
HO during the period from 16.03.1981 to 2.02.2020 has kept
office cash short to the extent of Ps. 74306/- (Seventy four
thousand three hundred six only), thereby violated the
provisions of Rule 11 of “Rules for Branch Offices” (Sixth
nd
Edition 2 Reprint) and Rule 177(1), 177(2), 177(3) read
with Rule-11 ibid thereby failed to maintain absolute
integrity and devotion to duty contravening the provision of
Sub Rule (ii) of Rule-21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak
Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020.

ARTICLE-II
That, the said Shri. Bheemanagouda K Policepatil, GDS
BPM(POD) Chikkenakoppa BO aw Kuknoor SO under
Koppal HO while working in the aforementioned post during
the aforementioned period, has denied to
receive/acknowledge the POD memo No: GDG/F/Misc
Chikkenakoppa BO/2020-21 dated 17.02.2020 issued by the
Supdt. of Post Offices Gadag Division Gadag on 20.02.2020
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.30
16:54:43+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

8 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

and denied to hand over the BO
records/documents/electronic peripherals to Inspector Posts
Koppal Sub Division. Even after being informed that he was
placed on off duty as per the orders of the competent
authority, continued to detain the Departmental documents,
instruments and furniture in his custody.

Thus, by his above acts, it is alleged that, the said Shri.
Bheemanagouda K Policepatil, GDS BPM (POD)
Chikkenakoppa BO a/w Kuknoor SO under Koppal HO,
failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner
which is unbecoming of a GDS (Sevak) contravening the
provision of Sub Rule (iii) of Rule-21 of Department of Posts,
Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020.

ARTICLE-III
That, the said Shri Bheemanagouda K Policepatil, GDS BPM
(POD) Chikkenakoppa BO a/w Kuknoor SO under Koppal
HO while working in the aforementioned post during the
aforementioned period, his work was found to be
unsatisfactory for more than 4 years continuously. In spite of
instructions issued to the BPM during the inspections he was
reluctant to work as per rules of the Department. The result
of the inspections of Chikkenakoppa Branch Post Office
carried out by various officers on 08.11.2017. 15.12.2018,
28.06.2019 and 30.12.2019 were continuously not
satisfactory.
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.30
16:54:43+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

9 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH


Thus by his above acts, it is alleged that, the said Shri
Bheemanagouda K Policepatil, GDS BPM, (POD)
Chikkenakoppa BO a/w Kuknoor SO under Koppal HO,
failed to maintain devotion to duty contravening the
provision of Sub Rule (ii) of Rule-21 of Department of Posts,
Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020.”

7. The main ground urged on behalf of the applicant is that no inquiry
proceedings have been held as per the provisions of the Gramin Dak
Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. Indisputedly, the
applicant submitted his representation dated 30.04.2021 against the
articles of charge and denied all the charges framed against him. As
such in order to conduct departmental inquiry, the inquiry officer and
presenting officer were appointed vide memo dated 11.05.2021. A
preliminary inquiry in the case was held on 08.09.2021. During the said
hearing, the applicant admitted all the three articles of charge
unconditionally. He also tendered a written statement in this regard to
the Inquiry Officer, which is placed on record as Annexure R1. In the
said written statement, he voluntarily admitted the charges and asked to
conclude the inquiry. Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer submitted his
inquiry report dated 13.09.2021 concluding that all the three articles of
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.30
16:54:43+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

10 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

charge framed against the applicant are ‘proved’ due to the charges being
admitted by the applicant. Copy of the said Inquiry Officer’s report was
forwarded to the applicant directing him to submit his representation on
the said report. Subsequent to which vide representation dated
25.09.2021, the applicant stated that he had not kept the office cash short,
that as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad
Bench, the Put off Duty was revoked and he had rejoined the duty and
case may be closed if he had done unsatisfactory work as he has only
two years of service left. Disciplinary Authority after considering the
material on record imposed the penalty of compulsory discharge from
engagement with monetary benefits (i.e., SDBS etc.,) and GDS Gratuity
proportionate to engagement period rendered by the applicant with
immediate effect, vide memo dated 21.10.2021. Since the applicant
refused to receive the copy of the final proceedings, a Mahazar was
drawn on 03.11.2021 in the presence of the villagers by the Inspector of
Posts, Koppal Sub Division and Memo dated 21.10.2021 was pasted on
the wall of the Post Office and on the applicant’s house, as per Annexure
R2.

8. Writ Petition No.104892/2021 filed by the applicant against the
penalty order dated 21.10.2021 has been dismissed by the Hon’ble High
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.30
16:54:43+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

11 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

Court of Karnataka for not availing the alternative remedy of appeal,
however, with certain observations. Pursuant to which, the applicant
has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which has been
rejected vide order dated 24.03.2023.

9. The applicant having admitted the charges uncontionally in
writing as per Annexure R1 and having requested to conclude the inquiry
without further extension, now cannot turn back and say that the same
was obtained under threat and pressure. Any statement made by the
charged official during the inquiry proceedings is binding. Knowing
well the effect or repercussion of the statements, the applicant has
accepted the charges levelled against him vide his written statement
dated 08.09.2021. That being so, he cannot turn back and take a defence
contrary to his statement that he has given such statement in writing on
08.09.2021 due to pressure, more so when the acceptance is made
categorically stating that the said statement has been given without any
pressure. No complaint or report has been made by the applicant
immediately against the statement dated 08.09.2021 to the higher
authorities, if taken under threat and pressure. Even in his representation
dated 25.09.2021 to Inquiry Officer’s report, after concluding the inquiry
proceedings, no such allegation is made. As a senior GDS of the
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.30
16:54:43+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

12 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

department, the applicant should have submitted proper response to the
Inquiry Officer’s report. The applicant was provided with all the
opportunities to prove his innocence. No procedural lapse is established
in issuing the penalty order by the Disciplinary Authority.

10. It is significant to note that the applicant produced cash of
Rs.37,384/- only against the BO closing balance of Rs.87,384/- and he
produced unaccounted eMO paid vouchers of worth Rs.10,200/-.
Further the applicant failed to produce the eMO paid vouchers for
Rs.39,800/- before the Inspector of Posts, Koppal Sub Division and
informed that the paid vouchers of eMO amounting to Rs.39,800/- were
sent to Kuknoor Sub Post Office for resolving technical issues, but no
relevant records such as acknowledgment of Sub Postmaster Kuknoor
SO for having received such eMO paid vouchers or any list of such eMO
paid vouchers, has been submitted. Confronting inquiry was also made
with respect to the eMO vouchers of Rs.39,800/- with SPM Kuknoor SO,
who totally denied the receipt of such eMos. Having regard to the
gravity of charges proved, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the
penalty of compulsory discharge from engagement of the applicant with
monetary benefits (i.e., SDBS etc.) and GDS Gratuity proportionate to
engagement period rendered by the applicant. In our considered
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.30
16:54:43+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

13 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

opinion, this penalty cannot be held to be disproportionate to the charges
proved or shocking the conscience of the Court.

11. It is well settled that the adequacy of evidence adduced during
disciplinary inquiry cannot be gone into in judicial review. In Para 12 and 13
of the judgment in B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and others reported
in (1995) 6 SCC 749 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held thus:
“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision
but a review of the manner in which the decision is made.
Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the
individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the
conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily
correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted
on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the
Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the
inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of
natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or
conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority
entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction,
power and authority to reach a finding of fact or
conclusion. But that finding must be based on some
evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor
of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to
disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that
evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.30
16:54:43+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

14 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent
officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its
power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority
to re- appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own
independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal
may interfere where the authority held the proceedings
against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with
the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules
prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or
finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no
evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no
reasonable person would have ever reached, the
Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the
finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to
the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts.
Where appeal is presented. The appellate authority has co-
extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature
of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry the strict proof of
legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not
relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence
cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the
Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4
SCR 718], this Court held at page 728 that if the conclusion,
upon consideration of the evidence, reached by the
disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.30
16:54:43+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

15 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at
all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.”

12. In the light of judgement in Chaturvedi, supra, it is certain that in
the present case, the findings or conclusion are based on some evidence
reached by the inquiry authority entrusted with the power, accepted by
the Disciplinary Authority, and the conclusion receives support
therefrom, as such the scope of judicial review by the Tribunal is limited.
Strict adherence to Evidence Act are not required to be made applicable
in the disciplinary proceedings, instead, they are governed by the
principles of natural justice and “preponderance of probability” rather
than “beyond reasonable doubt. The principles of natural justice were
duly followed during the inquiry. No procedural lapses are found in the
inquiry proceedings.

13. The cognate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.458/2024 dated
16.10.2025 ( Miss Poornima Suresh Shedgeri and Union of India and
others ), considering identical issue referring to catena of judgments of
the Hon’ble Apex Court, held that nature of work of Postman and Bank
is the same in relation to the money transactions. Thus, it is clear that
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.30
16:54:43+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

16 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

no leniency can be shown to the Post office employee when charges
against him have been proved in the disciplinary proceedings.

14. It is trite that maintaining absolute integrity is paramount
especially, when the postal service handles public money, valuable
goods and sensitive documents. The principle of strict punishment when
an employee of Department of Posts is found guilty of misconduct,
particularly involving fraud, embezzlement or breach of trust, leniency
is generally discouraged. The Hon’ble Apex Court and the other judicial
forums have consistently ruled that in cases of financial irregularities or
misappropriation of public funds, the only appropriate punishment is
typically dismissal or removal from service. Courts have emphasized
that the actual amount misappropriated does not matter, whether the
fraud involved is small or large sum, the loss of confidence in employee
is total. Sympathy of the past clean record cannot be proven to mitigate
the dishonesty.

15. In Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah and others v. Hoti
Lal, and another (2003) 3 SCC 605, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as under:
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.30
16:54:43+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

17 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

"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...."

16. In State Bank of India and others v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde,
(2006) 7 SCC 212, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
"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 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
S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.30
16:54:43+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI

18 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

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."

17. 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 employee when grave charges against him have been
proved in the disciplinary proceedings. Considering all the material
aspects, Appellate Authority has rightly dismissed the appeal, which
cannot be faulted with.

18. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the OA.
Accordingly, OA stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.

sd/- sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.




S SARALADEVI
CAT BANGALORE
2026.10.30
16:54:43+05'30'
S
SARALADEVI