Back
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, KULDEEP MATHUR
Indraj – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of Communication Dak Bhawan – Respondent
ORDER :
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
This Writ Petition challenges the decision dated 23rd February 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No.397 of 2015.
2. The petitioner was aggrieved by the punishment order dated 8th December 2014 which was approved by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 31st July 2015. The petitioner has pleaded that he was appointed as Branch Post Master in the post office Chak 1 KK Chunawadh on 12th January 1998 and discharged his duties with utmost devotion and sincerity. However, he was charged with misappropriating public fund in R.D. and Life Insurance Policy on the basis of certain irregularities detected in the Annual Inspection dated 16th June 2011. He was served a charge-memo on 17th December 2013 with two Articles of charge on imputations that (i) he received money from Smt. Kamla Devi, Chhaminder Singh and Krishna Devi for depositing in their Recurring account but the money received by him were not deposited in their accounts and entries in their passbook were made, and (ii) he received Rs.3366/- from Jaipal Singh on 23rd June 2011 against his Life Insurance Policy but this amount was also
Disciplinary actions require clear evidence beyond mere admissions; unsupported admissions cannot justify punitive measures.
Disciplinary actions against employees for financial misappropriation must follow due process and can only be interfered with if proven unreasonable, arbitrary, or disproportionate to the misconduct.
The court upheld the dismissal of a government employee for embezzlement, affirming that disciplinary authority's findings are binding unless proven perverse.
Admission of guilt in disciplinary proceedings cannot be contested later; courts seldom interfere with the quantum of punishment unless shockingly disproportionate.
The court affirmed the necessity of stringent penalties for corruption within public service, emphasizing that admissions of guilt during inquiries mitigate claims of unjust treatment.
The court upheld the impugned punishment order as sustainable in the eyes of the law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
