Financial misconduct by postal GDS proved by documents and admissions justifies removal from service; no leniency despite repayment, as integrity in public money handling demands strictness; courts interfere only if punishment shocks conscience.

ORDER

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

1. This OA was initially filed on 01.01.2017 and was decided by the Division Bench of this Tribunal on 17.08.2018. By the said order, the OA was dismissed. Thereafter, the aforesaid order was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. The High Court, by order dated 27.03.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.113877/2019 (S- CAT), remanded the matter. Thereafter, the matter again came before this Tribunal on 04.09.2025.

2. These facts are not disputed:-

(a) The applicant was working as GDS BPM in Kadampur B.O. a/w Gadag City SO from 13.03.2000 to 04.01.2005.

(b) Applicant was placed under put-off duty w.e.f. 04.01.2005 and the aforesaid order was confirmed as per Rule 12(2) of “Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Employment) Rules-2001”, vide Annexure A1 dated 10.01.2005 (c) A charge sheet (Annexure – A2) under Rule 10 of “GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules, 2001” was issued on 02.05.2005 and enquiry was conducted.

(d) Inquiry Officer submitted his report (Annexure – A3) on 05.02.2007. The aforesaid Report was communicated to the applicant vide Annexure – A4 dated 13.02.2007 and the applicant submitted his representation (Annexure – A5) on 27.03.2007.

(e) Thereafter, the punishment order (Annexure – A6) dated 11.06.2007 was issued by the respondents and the applicant was “removed from Service”.

(f) The applicant preferred the revision against the aforesaid order. The aforesaid revision Annexure A7 was allowed by the competent authority vide order Annexure – A8 dated 12.03.2009 and ordered “de-novo proceedings from the stage of examination of Prosecution witnesses”.

(g) Thereafter, vide Annexure – A9 dated 18.03.2009, new Inquiry Officer was appointed.

(h) The New Inquiry Officer again conducted the inquiry and submitted his report dated 04.01.2011 (Annexure – A10). As per report Charge No. 1 & 2 were found proved while charge No. 3 was not proved.

(i) Vide Annexure – A11 dated 24.01.2011, the Inquiry report communicated to the applicant. In the aforesaid letter, it was mentioned that the Authority agrees with the finding of Inquiry officer on Charge Article I and II, but do not agree with the finding upon Charge Article III.

(j) The applicant submitted his representation Annexure-A12 on 12.02.2011. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure – A14), imposing the penalty of removal of the applicant from service with immediate effect.

(k) The applicant submitted the revision before the competent authority against the order Annexure – A14 but the aforesaid revision petition dated 20.03.2017 (Annexure – A15) was also dismissed by order dated 06.06.2017 (Annexure – A16).

3. The applicant filed OA No. 06/2018 before this Tribunal and the Division Bench of this Tribunal passed the following order on 17.08.2018:-

“ORDER (ORAL)

DR. KB. SURESH, MEMBER (J):

1. Heard. After hearing the matter in detail on earlier days we had summoned the applicant today and the learned counsel for the applicant has produced him. Therefore, with the help of a Translator, we had asked him how much was the shortage? He would say that the shortage was about Rs.7200/-, but later on his brother had repaid the amount. On further questions also, he reiterated this stand in front of the whole court including his counsel.

2. That settles the matter. If there is shortage, then it an infraction, then the punishment will lie. OA is without merit. OA is dismissed. No order