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.

ORDER :

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Manas Ranjan Das with a prayer to quash the put off duty order dated 05.10.2015, charge sheet dated 26.02.2018, the inquiry report dated 12.08.2020, the proposed punishment order dated 23.09.2020, appellate order dated 03.01.2022, order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter 'Tribunal’).

3. From the Original Application filed by the petitioner, it appears that the charge sheet was issued against him on 26.02.2018 under six headings of charges. The allegation against the petitioner was that while he was working in the capacity of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master in Baisinga Branch office in account with Badasuanlo S.O. under Dhenkanal Postal Division, he collected different amounts from the depositors to deposit in their respective Saving Bank/Recurring Deposits/Sukanya Samrudhi accounts, which he had entered in their respective Saving Bank/Recurring Deposits/Sukanya Samrudhi accounts passbook with his signature and Branch PO, Date, Stamp, but he did not credit the said amount into Government account. When the departmental proceeding was initiated under six headings and charge copy was served, the petitioner filed his reply and in the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found on the basis of documentary as well as oral evidence that the six charges against the petitioner to be proved beyond any doubt.

4. The petitioner submitted his response to the report of the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary authority vide order dated 23.09.2020 passed the impugned punishment of removal from service, inter alia, holding that it is ordered that the petitioner in account with Badasuanlo S.O., under Dhenkanal H.O. (Now under put off duty) be removed from engagement of GDS with immediate effect.

5. The appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority against the order of punishment and the Appellant Authority rejected the appeal.

6. When the matter was challenged before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal considered the principle, which has been laid down in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 749 and Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekharan, 2015 (2) Supreme Court Cases 610, wherein the scope of interference with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority has been laid down.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment which has been imposed on the petitioner is grossly inappropriate to the charges.

8. However, Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned D.S.G.I. has pointed out from the counter affidavit that on conclusion of the verification work, it was found that the petitioner had committed permanent misappropriation of Rs.2,11,690.50 (rupees two lakhs eleven thousand six hundred ninety and fifty paisa) and temporary misappropriation of Rs.96,736.00 (rupees ninety six thousand seven hundred thirty six) in 34 (thirty four) number of Savings Account/ Recurring Deposit Accounts/Sukanya Samridhi Accounts and the normal interest and penal interest on the defrauded amount has been calculated and arrived at Rs.31,279.51 (rupees thirty one thousand two hundred seventy nine and fifty one paisa) and Rs.13,671.36 (rupees thirteen thousand six hundred seventy one and thirty six paisa) respectively, therefore, the total amount of permanent loss sustained by the department due to fraud committed by the petitioner is Rs.2,56,641.37 (rupees two lakhs fifty six thousand six hundred forty one and thirty se