IMPORTANT POINT
The Tribunal can modify disciplinary punishments if deemed shockingly disproportionate, reflecting judicial discretion in maintaining fairness in administrative actions.

ORDER :

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

Heard Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners.

2. No representation for the respondent.

3. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioners-The Inspector of Posts and others, challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred as ‘Tribunal’), dated 03.06.2011 in O.A.No.948 of 2009 which was filed by the applicant, the present respondent.

4. The Tribunal allowed the O.A.No.948 of 2009, and modified the punishment of termination, into punishment of debarring the respondent from appearing for any recruitment for any post for a period of three years from the date of the order of the Tribunal, also providing that the respondent shall not be entitled for any emoluments for the period he was out of work on account of the disciplinary proceedings, including the period of suspension.

5. The respondent herein, while working as GDSMD/PKR, Pedagummuluru Sub-Post Office, the Inspector (Posts), Yellamanchili Sub-Division, Yellamanchili was placed under off duty with effect from 19.11.2005 A/N, for misappropriation of Money Order bearing No.4347, dated 08.11.2005 for Rs.500/- booked at C.I.C. Bala Nagar, Hyderabad, payable to one K.Sashikala, C/o Late Sriramulu, Pedagummuluru. He was proceeded under Rule 10 of GDS Conduct & employment Rules 2001 (in short ‘Rules’), vide Memo No.F- 1/Pedagummuluru/06-07, dated 06.10.2006.

6. The Charge/Article-I reads as under :-

“That the said Sri S.Seshagirirao, GDSMD/PKR while working as GDSMD/PKR Pedagummuluru SO on 14.11.2005 failed to enter the C.I.E., Balanagar MO.No.4347, dated 08.11.2005 for Rs.500/- which was entrusted to him for payment in the postman book and pay the value of CIE Balanagar MO.No.4347, dated 08.11.2005 for Rs.500 payable to K.Sesikala c/w late K.SriramuluPedagummuluru which was entrusted to him for payment to the payee on 14.11.2005, but passed on the paid voucher of said money order to the Sub-Postmaster Pedagummuluru SO as genuine voucher by showing the money order as paid to the payee on 14.11.2005 and thus acted in a manner contrary to the provisions of Rules 10(1) of Rules for Branch Offices Sixth Edition and Rule 110 of Chapter III and Rule 127 (1) of Volume VI Part (III) (sixth edition) read with note II in the introductory part of chapter III to Vol VI Part III (Sixth Edition) and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required vide Rule 21 of GDS (C & E) Rules 2001”.

7. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Presenting Officer was also appointed on 08.11.2006. A detailed enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer recorded that the charge was proved. The Disciplinary Authority i.e., the Inspector (Posts), Yellamanchili Sub Division, Anakapalli Division, after considering the Enquiry Officer’s report and the representation of the respondent, passed the order of punishment, removing him from service, vide Memo No.F1/Pedagummuluru/06-07, dated 31.08.2007. The respondent’s first appeal was rejected by the Appellate authority on 22.09.2007. His revision petition was also dismissed on 21.05.2009 by the Director of Postal Services, Visakhapatnam. Thereafter, the respondent filed O.A.No.948 of 2009, in which, the Tribunal, by order, dated 03.06.2011, modified the punishment.

8. The operative portion of the order of the Tribunal reads as under :-

“Accordingly, the punishment of termination is modified and debarring the applicant from appearing for any recruitment for any post for a period of three years from today. The applicant shall not be entitled for any emoluments for the period he was out of work on account of these disciplinary proceedings, which will include the period of suspension also”.

9. Before the Tribunal, the contention of the present respondent was that, he was persuaded by the Presenting Officer to admit the guilt, and the promise w