Removal from service upheld for postal employee's misappropriation and breach of trust; Tribunal limits interference in disciplinary proceedings unless procedural flaws evident.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) Aggrieved by the order, dated 17.10.2017 of the 2^nd respondent in removing the applicant from service and which has been confirmed by the 1^st respondent vide his order, dated 16.05.2018, the applicant has filed the OA for setting aside the said orders and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case

2. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:

The applicant served as Sub Postmaster, Manalikkarai, from 28.06.2011 to 13.05.2015. The Manalikkarai Post Office is a Class III Sub Post Office functioning under Thuckalay Head Office. On 06.06.2015, an email was addressed to the Sub Postmaster, Manalikkarai Sub Office, regarding the non-credit of RD deposit amounts of Rs.3,000/- each in RD Account Nos. 2306417 and 2306418 by SBCO, Thuckalay Head Office. Following this, enquiries were conducted by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (ASP), Thuckalay Sub Division, pursuant to which the applicant was placed under suspension vide Memo, dated 17.12.2015. Subsequently, a Charge Memorandum was issued to the applicant, to which she submitted her explanation. A departmental enquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges stood proved. The applicant thereafter submitted her defence representation. The Disciplinary Authority, vide proceedings, dated 17.10.2017, imposed the penalty of removal from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, vide proceedings in Memo , dated 15.06.2018, confirmed the order of removal passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The said orders are under challenge in the present Original Application.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned orders passed by both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are contrary to law and unsustainable. It was submitted that the penalty of removal from service is grossly disproportionate and not commensurate with the nature of the alleged charges. It was further contended that the respondents failed to take into consideration the applicant’s unblemished service record and the absence of any prior adverse remarks throughout her tenure, and that the punishment was imposed without due appreciation of the factual circumstances and the legal implications involved in the case.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant had sought permission to examine three witnesses, namely S/Shri P. Sijjin, Kumaran, and Ram Mohan, all Postal Assistants who had officiated as Sub Postmasters at Manalikkarai during the applicant’s leave period. However, the Enquiry Officer declined to permit the examination of the said witnesses, thereby depriving the applicant of a reasonable and effective opportunity to establish her innocence.

5. It was also contended that the applicant had raised objections to the introduction of certain documents marked as State Exhibits during the examination and recording of deposition of Shri S. Suresh, ASP (SW-9). The Enquiry Officer overruled the objection on the ground that the documents had been collected during the preliminary enquiry to ascertain the facts of the case and could therefore be marked as State Exhibits. The learned counsel submitted that such a procedure is legally unsustainable.

6. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the 1st respondent erred in