Union Of India vs. Indraj

NON-REPORTABLE



2025 INSC 1313
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.13183 OF 2025
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.31515 of 2025)
(Arising out of Diary No.28631 of 2025)


UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. … Appellant (s)


VERSUS

INDRAJ … Respondent(s)




J U D G M E N T

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of the
1 2
High Court dated 02.09.2024 passed in a Writ Petition filed by the
respondent. The High Court while setting aside the order dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.11.13
16:41:58 IST
Reason:

1
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur
2
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10369 of 2024
Page 1 of 9


3
23.02.2023 passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No.397 of
2015, had set aside the penalty of removal imposed upon the respondent.
2. From the facts available on record, it is evident that the
respondent was employed on 12.01.1998 as Gramin Dak Sevak/ Branch
Post Master. Certain irregularities were found during the course of annual
inspection on 16.06.2011 regarding misappropriation of public funds
where the respondent despite receiving amount from the account holders,
had not entered the same in the books of accounts though the passbook
of the account holders had been stamped. Chargesheet was served upon
the respondent on 17.12.2013. Inquiry Officer was appointed, who
submitted his report dated 11.11.2014 finding that the charges against the
respondent stood proved. After giving due opportunity of hearing to the
respondent and considering his reply, vide order dated 08.12.2014
passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the respondent was removed from
service. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the respondent preferred
statutory appeal, which was dismissed on 31.07.2015. Still aggrieved, the
respondent filed application before the Tribunal, which was dismissed vide
order dated 23.02.2023. Still not satisfied, the respondent preferred Writ
Petition before the High Court, which was allowed vide the impugned
order.

3
Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur
Page 2 of 9


3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High
Court has travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested in it while examining the
punishment imposed upon respondent after due inquiry. There was no
defect pointed out by the respondent in the process of inquiry. He was
afforded due opportunity of hearing during the course of inquiry. Defence
assistance was also provided. In exercise of power of judicial review, only
the process of inquiry could be gone into and not the case on merits. It
was the admitted case of the respondent that he had misappropriated the
funds collected from the depositors for his personal use. When this came
to the notice of the authorities and pointed out to him, he deposited the
same. The plea of undue influence by the Inspector was taken much later
and not during the course of inquiry. The High Court had ventured into
examining the admissions made by the respondent on a new plea raised
by him. The order of the High Court being perverse, deserves to be set
aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court does not call
for interference by this Court. He further submitted that all the arguments
raised by both the parties before the courts below, have been considered
thread bare. It was only a mistake on his part. The admission of guilt was
given under the influence of the Inspector. Even the depositors did not
Page 3 of 9


raise any grievance or pointed out any finger of misappropriation against
the respondent in that regard. The appeal deserves dismissal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper
book. The respondent was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak/ Branch Post
Master on 12.01.1998. His services are governed by Gramin Dak Sevak
(Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “
the
”). During annual inspection, on 16.06.2011, certain
2011 Rules
irregularities were found and he was issued a chargesheet for
misappropriation of public funds on 17.12.2013. There were two charges
against him. The same are extracted below:
“Article-I
That while working as Gramin Dak Sevak/Branch
Postmaster, 1 K.K., Accounts Office, Chunavgarh during the period
31.07.2010 to 26.05.2011, Shri Indraj received the amount of
monthly installments of recurring deposit accounts from the
depositors as per the following details.

Page 4 of 9


As per the above details, Shri Indraj received the
amount from the depositors and made deposit entries accordingly
in the passbooks of the respective accounts and after entering the
details of the balance, signed it and put the date stamp of the post
office and returned the passbooks to the depositors, but instead of
depositing the amount of the above installments in the government
account, he kept it with himself for his own use. Thus, while
working as a branch postmaster, Shri Indraj misappropriated the
amount of monthly installments of recurring deposit accounts.

Article-II
That during the aforesaid period, while functioning as Gramin
Dak Sevak/Branch Postmaster, 1 K.K. Branch office, A/O
Chunawadh Sub office, the said Shri Indraj received the amount of
monthly installment due for the Gramin Dak Life Insurance Police
from the policyholder on 23.06.2011 as per the following details.

Shri Indraj, while working as Branch Postmaster, received a
total premium amount of Rs.3366/- from the above policyholder for
the months of January, 2010 to June 2011. He entered the amount
received in the premium receipt book of the concerned policy,
Page 5 of 9


affixed the date stamp of the branch post office and returned the
premium receipt book to the policyholder, but instead of depositing
the above deposited amount in the Government account, he kept
it for his own use and misappropriated the amount of Rs.3366/-.”

6. In the aforesaid factual matrix noticed in the articles of charge,
it was alleged that the respondent had violated the provisions of Rule 131
th
of the Branch Post Office Manual, 6 Edition and that he had failed to
maintain integrity and devotion to duty as was required under Rule 21 of
the 2011 Rules. The respondent having denied the charges, an Inquiry
Officer was appointed vide order dated 06.01.2014.
7. It is not in dispute that during the course of inquiry, the
respondent was given due opportunity of hearing. Defence assistance
was also made available to the respondent. The respondent cross-
examined all the departmental witnesses and did not lead any evidence
in defence. While trying to explain the discrepancies, the respondent
admitted the guilt. The amount embezzled by him had already been
deposited in the accounts of the account holders. He prayed for
forgiveness while reassuring that no such mistake will occur in future.
8. It is even noticed by the Tribunal in its order that the
respondent had admitted in his statement dated 28.04.2012 that the
Page 6 of 9


money received by him from the account holders was spent by him for his
household purposes.
9. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report. Copy thereof was
4
supplied to the respondent who submitted his representation against the
same. It was proved that the respondent had stamped the passbooks of
the account holders but did not make respective entries in the books of
accounts maintained in the post office, despite the fact that he had
received the amount from the account holders. When caught, he
deposited the amount.
10. Finding the explanation to be not satisfactory, the Disciplinary
Authority awarded punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved against
the same, statutory appeal was filed. He tried to explain the voluntary
deposit and the statement dated 28.04.2012 claiming that the same was
made under pressure from the Inspector. Finding no merit in the appeal,
the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The order of removal
from service passed in the appeal filed by the respondent was challenged
by the respondent by filing an Original Application before the Tribunal.
While appreciating the fact that there was no defect pointed out in the
process of inquiry as due opportunity of hearing was granted to the
respondent coupled with his admission and deposit of the amount which

4
Dated 25.11.2014
Page 7 of 9


he had misappropriated, the Tribunal did not find any merit in the Original
Application and the same was dismissed.
11. Still aggrieved, the respondent challenged the order passed in
the Original Application before the High Court. Vide impugned order, the
High Court had misdirected itself while extending the scope of jurisdiction
which could be exercised in matter of judicial review. The merits of
controversy were gone into. Even the admission made by the respondent
and voluntary deposit of the amount misappropriated by him were dealt
with and finally the punishment imposed on the respondent was set aside.
He was directed to be reinstated back in service. The High Court opined
that mere suspicion is not enough to punish him, not realizing the fact that
it was not a case of mere suspicion. The documents clearly established
the factum of embezzlement. The passbooks of the account holders were
stamped with the receipt of the amount with no corresponding entries in
the books of accounts maintained in the post office. It is a matter of chance
that the embezzlement made by the respondent came to the notice of the
authorities that action could be taken against him while restoring the
amount to the post office. However, the fact remains that mere deposit of
the embezzled amount will not absolve an employee of the misconduct.
Relationship of a customer with a banker is of mutual trust. Any account
holder will be satisfied once an entry is made in his passbook regarding
Page 8 of 9


deposit of any amount by him in the post office where he had maintained
the account. An account holder may not be privy to the manner in which
the accounts are maintained by the post office and also whether the
corresponding entries were made or not in the books of accounts
maintained there. The respondent tried to explain the embezzlement by
stating that on account of ignorance of the Rules, the passbooks of the
account holders were stamped. Such an explanation cannot be accepted
being farfetched. He had been in service for about 12 years. Ignorance of
rules of the procedure with so much experience cannot be accepted.
There was no defect or error pointed out in the course of inquiry. The High
Court had travelled beyond its jurisdiction in trying to explain the
admission of the respondent which was nothing else but an afterthought.
12. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. The
impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The punishment
imposed upon the respondent is upheld.

….........................J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)


.............................J.
(MANMOHAN)
NEW DELHI;
November 13, 2025.

Page 9 of 9