Removal from service upheld for GDS Branch Postmaster's misappropriation despite repayment; courts refrain from interfering with punishment quantum unless shocking to conscience, emphasizing strict standards for integrity in public money handling roles.

ORDER

PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)

1. Initially, this OA was filed on 02.09.2024 for the quashment of punishment order dated 14.02.2023 (Annexure – A11) and the appeal rejection order dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure – A13). The relief claimed in para 8 of the OA is as under:-

“i. Quash the superintendent of Post Offices, Haveri Dn, Haveri-581110, Memo No.F2/Iv/II/2019-20 dated: 14-2-2023 Annexure-A11 issued by respondent No.5.

ii. Quash the O/O Post Master General, N.K. Region, Dharwad-580001, Memo No. NKR/VIG/Appeal/072/2023 issued by respondent No.4 – Annexure-A13 dated: 28.07.2023.”

2. At the time of final arguments on 27.01.2026, the applicant counsel submitted that he restricted his claim only up to the quantum of punishment. He does not wants to challenge the merit of the punishment order and the appellate order. Therefore, the arguments have been heard only upon the quantum of punishment. It was mentioned in the aforesaid order sheet:-

“Shri P Kamalesan for the applicant.

Shri S Prakash Shetty for the respondents.

Final arguments heard. Initially, the applicant challenged the Annexure A11 and A13 which are the termination order and the appeal dismissal order. But during arguments, the counsel restricted his claim only upto the quantum of punishment. It is argued by the counsel that disproportionate punishment has been awarded. Therefore, the arguments at length heard upon the

quantum of punishment.

Reserved for orders.”

3. It is submitted by the counsel for applicant that the applicant has been ‘removed from engagement’ by the punishment order. Looking to the service period of the applicant and looking to the entire circumstances of the case including the fact that the applicant deposited the entire amount, the punishment should be lenient. Harsh punishment has been given which is required to be quashed or modified.

4. On the other side, the counsel for respondents submitted that proper inquiry was conducted. The applicant deposited the amount of misappropriation but that is not sufficient for leniency. Because the applicant dented the image of Post Office and the Government, therefore, no leniency was required in the case. Appropriate punishment has been awarded.

5. Therefore, the only question remains before this Court is :– “Whether the punishment of removal from engagement is appropriate or not?”

6. It is settled position of law that, in the case of punishment, the scope of interfere by court is very limited. When it appears that the punishment is too harsh, then the Court may interfere. It has been held that courts do not interfere with quantum of punishment, unless there exists sufficient reasons. The punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be subjected to judicial review unless it shocks the conscience of the Court. In the case of State of Meghalaya and Others Vs. Mecken Singh N. Marak,(2008) 7 SCC 580 = 2008(6) SLR 461 (SC) it has been held:-

“14. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The jurisdiction of the High Court, to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. The High Court, although has jurisdiction in appropriate case, to consider the question in regard to the quantum of punishment, but it has a limited role to play. It is now well settled that the High Courts, in exercise of powers under Article 226, do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless t