IMPORTANT POINT
Removal from Service – Mere deposit of embezzled amount will not absolve an employee of misconduct – Relationship of customer with Banker is of mutual trust.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court [High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur] dated 02.09.2024 passed in a Writ Petition [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10369 of 2024] filed by the respondent. The High Court while setting aside the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the Tribunal [Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur] 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. 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 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 2011 Rules”). During annual inspection, on 16.06.2011, certain 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 re