SARLA SHARMA vs M/o Communications

1- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH,JODHPUR
Original Application No. 80/2013

Pronounced on : 16.10.2026
Reserved on :17.09 .2026
CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON’BLE DR. HUKUM SINGH MEENA, MEMBER (ADMINISTRATIVE)

Sarla Sharma W/o late sh. Mahavir Prasad, aged about 44 years, resident
of 4/4 P&T Colony, Shastrinagar, Jodhpur, last posting at Gandhi Maidan
Post Office, Jodhpur, worked as P.A., removed from service.
…Applicant
[By Advocate: Mr. S.K.Malik ]

Vs.
1 Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of
Communication, Department of Posts, Dak Tar Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur – 302007.
3. The Director, Post Master General, Western Region, Jodhpur.
4. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
….Respondents
[By Advocate : Mr.K.S.Yadav ]
O R D E R
Per Rameshwar Vyas :

Being aggrieved by the penalty of dismissal from service imposed
upon the applicant by the disciplinary authority i.e. Senior Superintendent
of Post Offices (SSPO), Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur, vide order dated
26.05.2010 (Annex.A/2) and, the order of the appellate authority rejecting
the appeal on 29.02.2012 (Annex.A/1), the applicant has filed the present
O.A. to quash and set aside the above orders and sought a direction to the
respondents to reinstate her in service with all consequential benefits.
2. Facts of the case in brief are as under :

2026.10.27
Jitendra Raj
15:32:13+05'30'
Mehta

2- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]
The applicant was transferred as Postal Assistant in the Sub Post
Office, Gandhi Maidan, Jodhpur, vide order dated 12.10.2004 . During her
posting, she was handling the Accounts of Monthly Income Scheme
(MIS). During the preliminary inquiry, it was found that applicant while
performing as Postal Assistant and also Sub Post Master on some days,
she misappropriated Government money by entering false transactions
showing payments of monthly interest to various account holders without
actual payment to them. On the basis of the preliminary inquiry, she was
issued a Charge Memorandum under Rule 14 of the Central Civil
Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965.
3. As per the first charge, while working as Postal Assistant from
14.10.2004 to 28.04.2005, the applicant fraudulently showed payment of
interest money to nine MIS Account holders which was neither entered
in their Passbooks nor paid to them. As per the second charge, the
applicant while performing dual charge of Postal Assistant and Sub Post
Master during the period from 04.03.2005 to 12.03.2005 and on
12.04.2005, fraudulently, showed payment of interest money to eighteen
MIS Account-holders by entering forged transactions in the Books.
4. In this regard, a Memorandum of Charges, Annex.A/8, was issued
to the applicant on 10.03.2006. The applicant denied the charges. An
inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer in the presence of the
Presenting Officer and Defence Nominee. During inquiry, total sixteen
witnesses were examined on behalf of the Department whereas, in
defence, the applicant produced herself as a defence witness.
After completing the inquiry in thirty-eight sittings, inquiry report
was prepared on 26.02.2010.A copy of the inquiry report was provided to
the applicant vide letter dated 03.03.2010 (Annex.A/9), with liberty to file
representation within a period of ten days.

2026.10.27
Jitendra Raj
15:32:13+05'30'
Mehta

3- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]
The applicant filed a representation on 26.03.2010 (Annex.A/10).
Considering the inquiry report and the representation, the disciplinary
authority i.e. the SSPO, vide impugned order dated 26.05.2010
(Annex.A/2), found her guilty of both the charges and imposed upon her
a penalty of dismissal from service. Being aggrieved with the above, the
applicant filed an appeal dated 09.07.2010 (Annex. A/12), which was
rejected vide impugned order dated 29.02.2012 (Annex.A/1). Being
aggrieved with the above, the applicant has preferred the present O.A. to
quash and set aside the aforesaid impugned orders.
5. The respondents filed their reply to the O.A. on 05.09.2013 to
which, a rejoinder was filed by the applicant on 27.05.2019.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant while placing on record, a copy
of the judgment dated 28.01.2026 of Criminal Court, passed by the
Special Judge whereby, she has been acquitted of all the charges framed
under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. He further submitted that for
the same incident an FIR 562/2005, was lodged at the Police Station
Sardarpura, Jodhpur. He further submitted that since in the departmental
inquiry and criminal case, the charges were identical based upon the same
set of evidences, the penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority
after her acquittal in the charges by the Criminal Court, is not sustainable.
In support of his arguments, learned counsel for applicant has relied upon
the following judgments :
(i) Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Civil Appeal No.
7935/2023 decided by Hon’ble Apex Court on 04.12.2023.
(ii) G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2006 (5) SCC 446

2026.10.27
Jitendra Raj
15:32:13+05'30'
Mehta

4- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]
(iii) Kuldip Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors. reported in
(1999) 2 SCC 10
8. Learned counsel for applicant further contended that the
department could not establish the fact that the amount was withdrawn by
the applicant by putting forged signatures of account holders. The
department has not proved that signatures on the withdrawal forms were
not of the MIS Account holders. The applicant never worked alone in the
Post Office.
Learned counsel for applicant further contended that rather, it was
the responsibility of one Sh. Laxman Singh, to check and verify all such
transactions and then only authorize any payment of interest etc. to the
concerned person or the holder of such account. Though, Sh. Laxman
Singh was also issued a chargesheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965, yet, he was awarded a penalty of reduction in pay by one
stage for a period of two years along with punishment of recovery to the
tune of Rs. 40,000/- vide order dated 31.05.2010 (Annex.A/17).
The applicant, on account of work-load, could not check the
withdrawal(s) of the interest pertaining to various MIS accounts. She was
appointed on compassionate ground and was not perfect in the work. It is
further contended that applicant did not mis-appropriate any amount. The
criminal court has also acquitted her of all the charges.
9. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and material available on record, we would like to deal first
contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant with regard to the
effect of acquittal of the applicant in criminal case vide judgment dated
28.01.2026 on the result of the departmental inquiry. In this regard,
learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramlal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others,
reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175. It is the contention of the learned counsel

2026.10.27
Jitendra Raj
15:32:13+05'30'
Mehta

5- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]
that after acquittal of the applicant from the criminal charges, the
impugned order in departmental proceedings is liable to be quashed.
10. In the case of Ramla l (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified
the following legal principles :-
It has been held that, mere acquittal by a criminal court will not
confer any right on the employee to claim any benefit including
reinstatement. However, the charges in the departmental inquiry and the
criminal court are identical or similar and if the evidence, witnesses and
circumstances are one and the same then the matter acquires a different
dimension. If the Court in judicial review concludes that the acquittal in
the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of prosecution
evidence, and prosecution miserably failed to prove charge, Court in
judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances.
The Court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief,
if it concludes that allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings
to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive as has been relied upon in
the case of G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446.
Hon’ble the Supreme Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings
after satisfying itself that the findings of the appellate judge in the
criminal case, was not just, not proved, as in fact, the charge even stood
‘disproved’ by the very prosecution evidence. Hon’ble the Supreme Court
was also satisfied that in the teeth of the findings of the appellate judge,
the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed thereon, cannot be
allowed to stand.
11. It is pertinent to note that in the aforesaid matter, the main charge
against the appellant was that, he altered his date of birth from
th
21.04.1974 to 21.04.1972 in the 8 Standard Marksheet for projecting
himself to have attained majority at the time of recruitment as Constable

2026.10.27
Jitendra Raj
15:32:13+05'30'
Mehta

6- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]
with Armed Constabulary. The appellate judge had clearly noted that in
th
the original mark-sheet of 8 standard produced by the appellant his date
of birth was clearly shown as 21.04.1972 while other documents
produced by the prosecution were either letters or duplicate mark-sheets.
In the above factual background, Hon’ble Supreme Court was of
the view that the findings of the appellate judge clearly show that the
charge against the appellant was not just ‘proved’, but rather stood
‘disproved’ by very prosecution evidence. Considering the judgment of
appellate court in criminal case, Hon’ble Supreme Court after satisfying
itself that in the teeth of the findings of the appellate judge, the
disciplinary proceedings and the orders based thereon cannot be allowed
to stand. Hon’ble the Supreme Court also observed that it is a well
settled law that if the findings of the disciplinary authorities are arrived at
after ignoring the relevant material, the Court in judicial review, can
interfere. After scrutinizing the material Hon’ble Supreme Court was
satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated and deserves to be
quashed.
12. In the light of the above judgment, when we peruse the record of
the present case, we find that the judgment of acquittal of the applicant of
the charges, is not for the reason that the prosecution miserably failed to
prove the charges. On the other hand, we find that the learned criminal
court was not satisfied with the quality of evidence produced by the
prosecution against the accused applicant herein.
After examining the substance of the judgment, we find that the
learned criminal court has passed the order of acquittal on the theory of
benefit of doubt. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that acquittal
by criminal court in the present case, will not disturb the findings in the
disciplinary proceedings. After perusal of the judgment of criminal court

2026.10.27
Jitendra Raj
15:32:13+05'30'
Mehta

7- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]
and the record of the criminal proceedings, the order passed in the
disciplinary proceedings, we are of the view that despite acquittal of the
applicant, the findings of the disciplinary proceedings will stand unless,
it is vitiated by lacunae in decision making process, or, not warranted by
the evidence produced in the disciplinary proceedings.
13. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal (supra) clarified
that Writ Court’s power to review the order of disciplinary authority is
very limited. The scope of enquiry is only to examine whether the
decision-making process is legitimate as held in the matter of SBI Vs.
A.G.D. Reddy, reported in (2023) 14 SCC 391.
As part of that exercise, the courts exercising power of judicial
review are entitled to consider whether the findings of the disciplinary
authority have ignored material evidence and if it so finds, the courts are
not powerless to interfere [referred to United Bank of India Vs.
Biswanath Bhattacharjee reported in (2022) 13 SCC 329].
Keeping in view the above principle in mind, we have examined
the material available on record. After examining the record, we find no
material lacunae or illegality in decision making process adopted by each
authority in disciplinary proceedings conducted against the applicant.
The inquiry was conducted by an authorized inquiry officer. When the
charges were read-over to her, she denied the charges. The applicant
was granted proper time to engage her defence nominee. She was also
allowed to examine the listed relied upon documents. She was also
allowed to file additional documents. No proceedings were taken place in
her absence. The applicant was allowed to cross-examine the
departmental witnesses. The applicant presented herself as a defence
witness. Inquiring officer prepared a detailed report on 26.02.2010, a
copy of which was provided to her, to file representation within ten days.

2026.10.27
Jitendra Raj
15:32:13+05'30'
Mehta

8- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]
The inquiry officer concluded that applicant admitted the transactions of
the interest amount from the MIS Accounts, however, she did not admit
that she herself withdrawn the money. As per the conclusion made by the
inquiry officer, the withdrawal of the interest money was allowed without
producing original pass books of account holders. The withdrawal form
did not bear the signatures of the account holders. The applicant did not
choose to cross-examine the account holders. She also found that the
interest payable on MIS accounts had already been paid to their account
holders.
14. Perusal of the record reveals that most of the defence taken by the
applicant was of technical in nature which was not accepted by the
inquiry officer. The inquiry officer summarized the defence raised by
the applicant and answered each and every objection in a just and fair
manner. When the incident of withdrawal of interest (as mentioned in
first charge), took place, the applicant was working as a Postal Assistant
whereas, at the time of withdrawal of interest amount as mentioned in
second charge, she was discharging dual charge as Postal Assistant and of
Sub Post Master, therefore, we find no illegality in the procedure adopted
by the inquiry officer while holding the applicant guilty of the charges.
The findings of the inquiry officer are fully supported by evidence.
15. After getting a copy of the inquiry report, the applicant availed the
opportunity of defence by filing her representation on 26.03.2010
(Annex.A/10). The disciplinary authority after taking into consideration
applicant’s representation and the inquiry report, passed a well reasoned
order holding her guilty of the charges levelled and consequently
imposed a penalty of dismissal from service. The applicant filed an
appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority which was decided
on 29.02.2012 (Annex.A/1) by the Post Master General, Western Zone,
by a reasoned and speaking order.

2026.10.27
Jitendra Raj
15:32:13+05'30'
Mehta

9- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]
16. The appellate authority has passed the order after dealing with each
and every ground raised by the charged official in the appeal. In absence
of any material to the effect that the findings by the disciplinary authority
were not warranted by evidence, this Tribunal is not supposed to re-
appreciate the evidence produced by both the parties. It is well settled
legal position that this Tribunal does not act in the capacity of an
appellate authority. The Tribunal exercises power of judicial review with
a view that to examine whether the findings of the disciplinary authority
are not supported by evidence or the disciplinary authority has ignored to
take into consideration the material evidence. Since the applicant has
failed to indicate any substantial lacunae in the findings of the
disciplinary authority with regard to her guilt, this Tribunal need not
reappreciate the evidence.
As per proved facts while working as Postal Assistant, the
applicant withdrawn the amount either herself or allowed it to be
withdrawn by other(s) without perusal and production of the respective
Pass Books and making entries therein. She, while allowing the
withdrawal of interest money under the MIS Scheme, also ignored the
fact that interest was already paid to the account holders. Since the
interest money was not payable, the applicant, Smt. Sarla Sharma, Postal
Assistant, caused financial loss to the Department by accepting
withdrawal forms of the interest money by unauthorized persons.
17. It is not in dispute that interest money was neither claimed by its
real and actual account holders nor paid to them on the disputed dates.
The account holders were already paid their due interest amount after
making entries in their pass book. In our view, the conduct on the part of
the applicant cannot be ignored for want of burden of work or
unawareness of rules. In our view, looking to the nature of misconduct,

2026.10.27
Jitendra Raj
15:32:13+05'30'
Mehta

10- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]
the punishment imposed upon the applicant cannot be termed as
excessive or dis-proportionate to her conduct.
So far as the contention of the learned counsel for applicant that the
co-employee Sh. Laxman Singh, was imposed a lesser penalty compared
to Smt. Sarla Sharma, the applicant herein, is concerned, we are of the
opinion that said Sh. Laxman Singh was held guilty for not carrying out
the prescribed checks. He failed to check the work of Smt. Sarla Sharma,
applicant herein. The role of Sh. Laxman Singh was entirely different. As
per the findings of the disciplinary authority against Sh. Singh, he did not
carry-out the prescribed checks which were made fraudulently by Smt.
Sarla Sharma, thus, the main person, responsible for fraudulent
transactions, is Smt. Sarla Sharma, who failed to justify her act in the
defence taken by her in the disciplinary proceedings.
18. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present O.A., hence,
the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

( Hukum Singh Meena) ( Rameshwar Vyas )
Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial)





Jrm.






2026.10.27
Jitendra Raj
15:32:13+05'30'
Mehta

11- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]






















2026.10.27
Jitendra Raj
15:32:13+05'30'
Mehta

12- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]






















2026.10.27
Jitendra Raj
15:32:13+05'30'
Mehta

13- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]



















2026.10.27
Jitendra Raj
15:32:13+05'30'
Mehta