Proven misappropriation of public funds warrants removal from engagement, irrespective of the amount involved.

The applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer at Peralam Sub-Office, was proceeded against under Rule 10 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 for allegedly misappropriating three Old Age Pension electronic Money Orders of ₹1,000 each payable to deceased beneficiaries.

He was accused of recording the amounts as paid, affixing his own left thumb impressions in the relevant documents, and using the amounts for personal purposes, contrary to Rules 121(2) and 127(1) of Postal Manual, Volume VI, Part III, and Rule 21 of the GDS Rules.

The applicant denied the charges and contended that he had been denied 11 additional documents, the opportunity to summon relatives of the deceased payees, and the opportunity to cross-examine the authors of certificates issued by revenue authorities.

The Inquiry Officer found all three charges proved beyond doubt. After considering the inquiry report and the applicant’s representation, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from engagement on 13 November 2017. The Appellate Authority rejected the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the penalty on 26 November 2018.

The applicant consequently sought quashing of both orders and reinstatement with consequential benefits.

Whether the disciplinary inquiry was vitiated by violation of natural justice because the applicant was allegedly denied access to additional documents and the opportunity to summon or cross-examine material witnesses?

Whether the findings of misconduct were unsupported by evidence or otherwise perverse, warranting interference by the Tribunal in judicial review?

Whether the penalty of removal from engagement was disproportionate to the proved misconduct and the applicant’s long service?

The Tribunal applied Rule 10 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 governing disciplinary proceedings, and Rule 21 requiring a GDS employee to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty.

The alleged conduct was also assessed under Rules 121(2) and 127(1) of Postal Manual, Volume VI, Part III.

On judicial review, the Tribunal does not act as an appellate authority and may interfere only where the inquiry violates statutory rules or natural justice, the findings are perverse, or they are unsupported by evidence.

Regarding punishment, the Tribunal relied on Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, 2006 (2) SCC 373, for the principle that adequacy of penalty is ordinarily outside judicial review unless the penalty is mala fide or disproportionate.

It further relied on Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane, 2005 (3) SCC 254, and Divisional Controller, NEKRTC v. H. Amaresh, 2006 (6) SCC 187, which hold that in cases of misappropriation, loss of confidence—not merely the amount misappropriated—is the primary consideration and that misplaced sympathy is impermissible.

The Tribunal also relied on Union of India v. Indraj, Civil Appeal No. 13183 of 2025, 2025 INSC 1313, affirming that embezzlement by a GDS employee constitutes grave misconduct and that subsequent restitution or explanations based on ignorance of rules do not absolve the employee.

The Tribunal treated the inquiry as procedurally valid, noting that the applicant participated in the proceedings, was permitted to engage a Defence Assistant, received the inquiry report, and submitted a representation before the Disciplinary Authority passed the penalty order.

The Inquiry Officer’s findings were based on oral and documentary evidence showing that the applicant recorded payments to beneficiaries who had already died, affixed his own left thumb impressions, and appropriated the pension amounts.

Since the findings were supported by evidence and no material procedural illegality or jurisdictional defect was established, the Tribunal declined to reappraise the evidence or substitute its view for that of the disciplinary authorities.

On proportionality, the Tribunal held that the misconduct involved dishonest appropriation of public funds intended for vulnerable old-age pension beneficiaries and constituted a serious breach of public trust.

Applying the Supreme Court’s loss-of-confidence principle, it held that the relatively small amount involved and the applicant’s long service could not justify interference with the penalty of removal.

The penalty was therefore not regarded as shocking the conscience of the Tribunal.

Given the applicant’s misappropriation of pension amounts and the resulting loss of confidence, the penalty of removal from engagement was held to be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.

The Original Application was accordingly dismissed, the orders dated 13 November 2017 and 26 November 2018 were left undisturbed, and no order as to costs was made.