Removal modified to termination to preserve terminal benefits for long-serving employees despite serious misconduct.

The Applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak Madura (GDS-MD) with approximately 27 years of service, was placed on "put off duty" following a surprise inspection on May 29, 2017

The inspection revealed 411 undelivered postal articles in the Applicant’s possession, including 188 registered/speed post articles and 223 ordinary articles (99 of which were Aadhaar cards)

He was charged with faking delivery records and forging signatures to show items as delivered when they were not

Although the Applicant initially denied the charges, he later submitted a written plea of guilt (Annexures A14 and A15)

Based on this admission, the Inquiry Authority found him guilty, and the Adhoc Recruiting Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service on May 31, 2018 (Annexure A17)

His subsequent appeal was dismissed on August 27, 2018

The Applicant challenged these orders, alleging the plea of guilt was obtained through coercion and that he was denied the assistance of a legal practitioner/defense assistant

1. Whether the rejection of the Applicant's request to engage a legally trained defense assistant vitiated the inquiry proceedings

2. Whether the Applicant's plea of guilt was obtained under undue influence or coercion

3. Whether the penalty of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct

The Tribunal applied the Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, specifically Rule 21 regarding the maintenance of absolute integrity and devotion to duty

It also referenced Rule 14(19) and Rule 27 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

Regarding judicial review of punishment, the court relied on the principles in Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar, which limits interference unless the penalty "shocks the conscience"

It further followed the precedent set by the Kerala High Court in M.K. Poulose v. Union of India [OP(CAT) No. 133/2017], which allows for equating "removal" with "termination" to preserve eligibility for severance and ex-gratia benefits in specific circumstances

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant's claim regarding the defense assistant, noting that the proposed assistant was a law graduate about to enroll as an advocate; since the Inquiry Officer was not a legally trained person, the rejection was consistent with standing instructions

Regarding coercion, the Tribunal found the allegations vague and unsubstantiated, noting that an employee with 27 years of experience is unlikely to be easily coerced into a written admission of guilt

On the merits, the Tribunal found the misconduct "serious," involving a breach of public trust by faking delivery records for hundreds of items, including sensitive documents like Aadhaar cards

However, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had no prior complaints during his long tenure

To balance the severity of the misconduct with the Applicant's length of service and current age (65), the Tribunal determined that while the finding of guilt was sound, the form of punishment required modification

It directed that the "removal from engagement" be equated to "termination of service"

This modification was intended to allow the Applicant to receive severance amounts (approx. ₹1.5 Lakh) and ex-gratia payments (approx. ₹1.5 Lakh), totaling roughly ₹3,00,000/-

The respondents were ordered to release these consequential benefits within 60 days

The Original Application was disposed of with no order as to costs