DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE FOR MISAPPROPRIATION: LOSS OF CONFIDENCE TRUMPS AMOUNT MISAPPROPRIATED.

The applicant, A. Rojapoo, was initially appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer (GDS MD) and later transferred as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Packer (GDS MP) at Konganapuram Sub Office (S.O.).

His superior, Sub-Postmaster M. Thirunavukkarasu, committed misappropriation of over Rs. 20 lakhs of depositors' funds, was suspended, reinstated with recovery orders, and eventually dismissed in 2016.

Following a 100% verification of accounts at Konganapuram S.O. after Thirunavukkarasu's fraud was discovered, a discrepancy was found in Time Deposit Account No. 31661 of Smt. Gunavathi.

The passbook showed a deposit of Rs. 3,000/-, while Post Office records showed Rs. 7,000/-.

Smt. Gunavathi stated that she had entrusted Rs. 8,000/- to the applicant for the account.

The applicant admitted to receiving Rs. 8,000/- but stated he inadvertently recorded Rs. 3,000/- in the passbook on 18.07.2005, and that on the Sub-Postmaster’s instructions, he prepared the forms and handed them over.

However, the charge memo alleged the applicant received Rs. 8,000/- and issued a receipt for only Rs. 7,000/-.

The applicant was accused of retaining Rs. 1,000/- and processing the account for Rs. 7,000/-, while recording Rs. 3,000/- in the passbook.

A criminal case was also registered against him.

The applicant admitted retaining Rs. 1,000/- and voluntarily remitted Rs. 1,120/- (including interest) in August 2006.

A charge memo dated 17.11.2009 was issued under Rule 10 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2001.

After an inquiry conducted under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the applicant was removed from service via order dated 14.09.2013.

His appeal and revision petition were dismissed on 31.07.2015 and 24.08.2016, respectively.

Whether the findings of misconduct and the penalty of removal from service imposed on the applicant are arbitrary, illegal, or violate principles of natural justice.

Whether the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to the charge leveled against the applicant.

Whether the Tribunal should interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction in disciplinary matters is limited to ensuring fair and just treatment, adherence to natural justice, conformity with applicable rules and procedures, and that conclusions are supported by evidence.

Interference is warranted only for statutory rule inconsistencies, perverse interpretation of evidence, or lack of evidence.

The Tribunal typically does not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it shocks the conscience of the adjudicating body.

The determination of appropriate penalty lies with the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities.

The Supreme Court in *Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs A.T.Mane* (2005 (3) SCC 254) held that for misappropriation of funds, the loss of confidence, rather than the amount misappropriated, is the primary factor for punishment, and dismissal is appropriate.

Similarly, *Divisional Controller, NEKRTC Vs H.Amaresh* (2006 (6) SCC 187) reiterated that loss of confidence is paramount and stated that generosity or misplaced sympathy are impermissible in cases of pilferage or misappropriation of funds, even for small amounts.

The court affirmed that the applicant received a reasonable opportunity to defend his case during the inquiry.

The misconduct of embezzling Rs. 1,000/- was established through evidence and the applicant's own admission during the inquiry, which he voluntarily remitted with penal interest.

This act demonstrated a failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty.

The Disciplinary Authority, applying the standard of "preponderance of probability," concluded that fraud was committed.

Both the Appellate and Revisionary Authorities upheld the removal, noting that the act tarnished the Department's image.

While acknowledging its limited jurisdiction, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Disciplinary Authority's decision.

Applying the principles from *A.T.Mane* and *H.Amaresh*, the Tribunal reasoned that the loss of public confidence due to the applicant's misconduct, despite the amount, justified the extreme penalty.

The court held that the penalty was proportionate given that it considered the gravity of the misconduct and the erosion of public trust in the postal department.

The Original Application was, therefore, dismissed.