Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member, Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative Member
Manas Ranjan Das – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A.No. 260/00045 of 2022
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: S.19
Constitution of India: Art.226, Art.227
Headnote
(B) Service Law - Misappropriation of government money - Subsequent deposit of funds - Effect on misconduct - Mere fact of restitution does not absolve the employee of grave misconduct or tarnish to departmental reputation - Courts should not show leniency in cases of financial dishonesty. (Paras 13, 14)
(C) Estoppel - Doctrine of election - Principles of aproabation and reprobation - A party cannot accept the benefits of an order and simultaneously challenge its validity or deny its character as a punishment. (Paras 18, 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
A government employee working as a postal service agent was found to have accepted deposits from customers but failed to credit them into government accounts, causing pecuniary loss initially and compromising departmental integrity. Following an inquiry, the employee was held guilty of grave misconduct and removed from service. The employee approached the tribunal seeking to quash the disciplinary proceedings and the removal order, contending the absence of financial loss and that the punishment was disproportionate.
Findings of Court:
The disciplinary enquiry was conducted in compliance with statutory rules and principles of natural justice. The charges of misappropriation were admitted by the delinquent official. The restitution of funds post-discovery does not mitigate the gravity of the misconduct or the breach of public trust.
Issues: The main issues were whether judicial interference is warranted in the disciplinary findings, whether restitution of funds negates the misconduct, and whether the punishment of removal was disproportionate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that judicial review is restricted to examining the fairness of the inquiry process and not re-appreciating evidence. Misappropriation of public funds, even if eventually refunded, undermines the trust and reputation of a public institution, justifying the imposition of the harshest penalty under service rules.
Result: The Original Application was dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N.K.Sahoo
For the Respondents: A.K.Mohapatra
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the factual timeline of misappropriation charges and disciplinary findings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. applicant's plea of no financial loss and challenge to procedural proportionality. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings regarding evidentiary support. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. public servant misconduct remains serious even if misappropriated funds are returned. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. application of the doctrine of estoppel against contradictory litigation positions. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
Fact of the matter is that during verification, it was found by the department that the applicant in the capacity of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master, Baisinga BO in account with Badasuanlo SO under Dhenkanal Postal Division had collected amounts from depositors to deposit in their respective Savings Banks, Recurring Deposits and Sukanya Samridhi Accounts, which he had entered in the respective SB/RD/SSA passbooks with his signature and Branch PO Date Stamp but did not credit the said amount into Govt. accounts. Alleging misappropriation of Govt. Money/omission/commission, departmental proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 10 of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 vide Memo dated 26.02.2018. The sum and substance of the allegation made against him in the memorandum of charge is as under:
“Article-I
Shri Manas Ranjan Das while functioning as GDSBPM, Baisingha BO, in account with Badasuanlo S.O. during the period from 06.09.2010 to 04.10.2015 accepted a sum of Rs.4000/- and Rs.2500/- from Sri Nirmal Diani, depositor of SB pass book account No. 1071621 on 11.06.2015 (as per date stamp in the pass book) and 08.09.2015 (as per date stamp in the pass book) respectively along with the sald pass book and pay in slip for deposit. The said Shri Das, after entering the aforesaid deposit amounts on the aforesaid dates in the said pass book did not credit the above noted deposit amounts into Govt. account on the dates of deposit or on any other subsequent dates. By the above acts, the said Shri Das violated the provisions contained in Rule-133(2) and the instruction No. 20 under caption "What a BPM should not fail to do incorporated in "Rules for Branch Offices" Eighth Edition, corrected up to 28 September, 2007 and thereby put pecuniary loss of Rs.6500/- to the Govt. on the dates of deposit as noted above and thereby committed grave misconduct.
It is therefore imputed that Shri Manas Ranjan Das, in the capacity of GDSBPM, Baisinga B.O. failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as enjoined in Rule-21 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011.
Article-II
That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid capacity, the said Shri Manas Ranjan Das accepted a sum of Rs 4000/-, Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 300/- from Sri Pabitra Moharana, depositor of SB pass book account No. 1069801 on 24.07.2015 (as per date stamp in the pass book), 26.08.2015 (as per date stamp in the pass book) and 16.09.2015 (as per date stamp in the pass book) respectively along with said pass book and pay in slip for deposit. The said Shri Das, after entering the aforesaid deposits on the aforesaid dates in the said pass book did not credit the above noted deposit amounts into Govt. account on the dates of deposit or on any other subsequent dates. By the above acts, the said Shri Das violated the provisions contained in Rule-133(2) and the instruction No. 20 under caption "What a BPM should not fail to do incorporated in "Rules for Branch Offices" Eighth Edition, corrected up to 28 September, 2007 and thereby put pecuniary loss of Rs.5300/- to the Govt. on the dates of deposit as noted above and thereby committed grave misconduct.
It is therefore imputed that Shri Manas Ranjan Das, in the capacity of GDSBPM, Baisinga B.O. failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as enjoined in Rule-21 of
