In cases of employee embezzlement, the gravity of the misconduct lies in the act of misappropriation itself rather than the quantum of money involved, justifying severe penalties such as removal from service regardless of the amount.

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rameshwar Vyas, Member (J)

Being aggrieved by penalty of removal from service imposed upon him, the applicant has preferred the instant OA while questioning the order of removal dated 30.03.2016 (Annexure-A/1) and the order rejecting the appeal by the Appellate Authority dated 09.06.2016 (Annexure-A/2) and prayed to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.

2. Facts of the case in brief are as under:-

2.1 The applicant while working as GDS MPM Raas (Babra) was served with a charge sheet dated 21.01.2015 (Annexure-A/3) by framing two charges to the following effect.

While working as GDS BPM Raas (Babra), the applicant by forging the thumb impression of the recipient Ms. Surma and also the signature of the witnesses misappropriated the amount of two money orders each of Rs.1000/-.

2.2 The applicant denied the charges. Consequently, Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted its report dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure-A/4) whereby he came to the conclusion that the amount of money order was not paid to the recipient on the dates shown in the record. The amount was paid to Surma after 05.12.2014. However, the Inquiry Authority was of the view that the charge of forging the thumb impression and signature of the witnesses is not proved. The Disciplinary Authority was not agreeable to the second finding of the Inquiry Authority, therefore, disagreement note dated 22.02.2016 (Annexure-A/5) was issued asking the applicant to file representation, if any, within a period of 15 days. As per disagreement note, the applicant, Pahar Singh, in his statements recorded on 05.12.2014 (SD-4) and 07.01.2015 (SD-5) accepted that the forged thumb impression of Surma and also, he admitted the signature of the witnesses. He also voluntarily deposited the amount of Rs.35000/- vide receipt No.A/37 dated 08.10.2013.

2.3 In response to the disagreement note, the applicant filed representation dated 08.03.2016 (Annexure-A/6) wherein he relied upon the affidavit submitted by Surma as also the statement dated 109.09.2015 wherein she admitted her thumb impression on the receipt of the money order. However, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 30.03.2016 (Annexure-A/1) while disbelieving the affidavit of Surma as also witnesses Bohra Ram and Raghuveer and relying upon the admission/confession made by the applicant in his earlier statement dated 05.12.2014 and 07.01.2015 found charges proved against the applicant and looking to the seriousness of the charges levelled against the applicant imposed upon him the penalty of removal from service under Rule 9 of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rule 2011.

2.4 Being aggrieved with the order of the removal from service by the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant has preferred the Appeal (Annexure-A/7) which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.06.2016 (Annexure-A/2).

2.5 Being aggrieved with the above, the applicant has preferred the instant OA on the ground that the amount of money order has already been paid to the Surma, therefore, there is no question of misappropriation. The Disciplinary Authority in its disagreement note did not mention the points of disagreement. Witness Surma and other two witnesses stated that the amount of money order was paid to her. The payment of the amount of money order(MO) has also been admitted in the affidavit filed by Surma. He further contended that the opinion of forged thumb impression and signature of attesting witness has not been based upon the expert opinion. As per the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Co