Misappropriation of funds, regardless of the amount, warrants removal from service despite subsequent restitution or witness retraction.

The applicant, while serving as GDS BPM at Raas (Babra), was charged with misappropriating two money orders of Rs. 1000/- each by forging the recipient's (Ms. Surma) thumb impression and witnesses' signatures.

While the Inquiry Officer (IO) found that the money was paid late (after a complaint) but concluded the forgery charge was not proved, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) disagreed.

The DA issued a disagreement note, relying on the applicant's prior voluntary confessions and the recipient's initial statements.

Despite the applicant producing an affidavit from the recipient claiming receipt of funds, the DA disbelieved it and imposed the penalty of removal from service on 30.03.2016.

This was upheld by the Appellate Authority on 09.06.2016.

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority followed the correct legal procedure in recording a disagreement note and finding the charges of forgery and misappropriation proved despite the IO’s findings.

2. Whether the penalty of removal from service was disproportionate to the conduct, given the small amount involved and late payment to the recipient.

The court primarily applied the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, specifically Rule 9 regarding penalties.

A Tribunal cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over findings of fact in departmental inquiries unless there is procedural irregularity or lack of evidence.

In cases of misappropriation, the act itself is relevant regardless of whether the amount is small or large, as established in UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Suresh Chand Sharma (2010) 6 SCC 555.

The Tribunal analyzed whether the DA’s findings were supported by evidence. It noted that the applicant had made categorical admissions of guilt in statements recorded on 05.12.2014 and 07.01.2015.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument regarding the recipient's affidavit, noting that the affidavit was never produced for cross-examination during the inquiry.

It held that the DA was justified in relying on the initial statements of the recipient and witnesses which indicated the money was not paid on the recorded dates.

The Tribunal found that the subsequent "repayment" did not mitigate the initial act of embezzlement, as the mens rea (guilty intent) was established by the forgery and the delayed payment only after a complaint was lodged.

No procedural lapses or violations of natural justice were found.

It ruled that removal from service is not a disproportionate penalty for embezzlement/misappropriation, as the integrity of the postal system depends on trust.

The Original Application was dismissed, and the orders of removal and the appellate rejection were upheld.