Disciplinary proceedings against employees for misappropriation must uphold integrity, with penalties aligned to the severity of misconduct.

ORDER

PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) To quash the (a) Memo No.IP- SWP/F/SNH/Dlgs/2018-19 dated at Kushalnagar, the 06.06.2020, issued by the respondent no.4, Annexure A4, (b) Order No.F4-03/2017-18 dated at Madikeri the 10.09.2020, issued by the respondent No.3, Annexure A6, and (c) Memo No.SK/STA/9-5/03/2020/1 dated at Bengaluru the 09.03.2021, Annexure A8.

(ii) Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits including continuity of service making full payment of pay and allowances during the period from 5.1.2018, the date he was put off duty, till the date of his reinstatement and

(iii) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. ”

2. The reliefs are claimed on the grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 5(i) to 5(vii) of the Original Application. The brief facts of the case of the applicants are that the applicant was appointed in the Department of Posts as GDS MD, Shanivarasanthe SO a/w Madikeri HO in Kodagu Division on 4.11.1994. He was placed on ‘put off’ duty from 5.1.2018 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, he was reinstated by an order dated 31.5.2018. Thereafter, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him under Rule 10 of the GDS (C&E) Rules, 2011, on 22.08.2019 framing 3 articles of charge. The gist of the charge is that he has failed to deliver money orders to 2 payees who had died earlier, but shown as the same as paid (post death) and that he has received Rs.2000/- from a depositor but accounted Rs.1000/- only.

3. Thereafter, an inquiry was held in to the charge against the applicant and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 09.03.2020 holding that all the articles of charge were proved. Based on the findings of inquiry, the respondent No.4 imposed the penalty of removal of the applicant from service by an order dated 6.6.2020. The applicant preferred an appeal against the above order to the respondent No.3. The appeal has been dismissed by the respondent no.3 by an order dated 10.09.2020. The applicant submitted a petition against the said order to the respondent no.2 which was dismissed by an order dated 9.3.2021. The applicant has filed this O.A challenging the order of penalty and seeking consequential relief.

4. On notice, the respondents have filed their reply statement. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant.

5. The Original Application came up for final hearing on 12.12.2024. The learned counsel Shri.A.R.Holla for the applicant and Shri.Sayed S Kazi for the respondents were present and heard.

6. We have carefully gone through the entire record and considered the rival contentions.

7. We have carefully gone through the charge memorandum dated 22.08.2019 and its Articles I, II and III in Annexure 1. In Annexure 2, statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of the articles of charge framed against Shri.S.N.Harisha Dak Sevak Shanivarasanthe SO a/w Madikeri HO, details for all the three charges are explained and Annexure 3 is the list of 21 documents relied and in Annexure 4, list of 12 witnesses by whom the articles of charge framed against the applicant Shri.S.N Harisha, Dak Sevak Shanivarasanthe SO a/w Madikeri HO are proposed to be sustained are mentioned.

8. The basic facts of the case are not denied and after due conduct of inquiry on various dates, the Inquiry Officer