SARLA SHARMA vs M/o Communications on 16 October 2026

O R D E R

Per Rameshwar Vyas :

Being aggrieved by the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the applicant by the disciplinary authority i.e. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices (SSPO), Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur, vide order dated 26.05.2010 (Annex.A/2) and, the order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal on 29.02.2012 (Annex.A/1), the applicant has filed the present O.A. to quash and set aside the above orders and sought a direction to the respondents to reinstate her in service with all consequential benefits.

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

Mehta

2- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]

The applicant was transferred as Postal Assistant in the Sub Post Office, Gandhi Maidan, Jodhpur, vide order dated 12.10.2004. During her posting, she was handling the Accounts of Monthly Income Scheme (MIS). During the preliminary inquiry, it was found that applicant while performing as Postal Assistant and also Sub Post Master on some days, she misappropriated Government money by entering false transactions showing payments of monthly interest to various account holders without actual payment to them. On the basis of the preliminary inquiry, she was issued a Charge Memorandum under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965.

3. As per the first charge, while working as Postal Assistant from 14.10.2004 to 28.04.2005, the applicant fraudulently showed payment of interest money to nine MIS Account holders which was neither entered in their Passbooks nor paid to them. As per the second charge, the applicant while performing dual charge of Postal Assistant and Sub Post Master during the period from 04.03.2005 to 12.03.2005 and on 12.04.2005, fraudulently, showed payment of interest money to eighteen MIS Account-holders by entering forged transactions in the Books.

4. In this regard, a Memorandum of Charges, Annex.A/8, was issued to the applicant on 10.03.2006. The applicant denied the charges. An inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer in the presence of the Presenting Officer and Defence Nominee. During inquiry, total sixteen witnesses were examined on behalf of the Department whereas, in defence, the applicant produced herself as a defence witness. After completing the inquiry in thirty-eight sittings, inquiry report was prepared on 26.02.2010.A copy of the inquiry report was provided to the applicant vide letter dated 03.03.2010 (Annex.A/9), with liberty to file representation within a period of ten days.

Mehta

3- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]

The applicant filed a representation on 26.03.2010 (Annex.A/10). Considering the inquiry report and the representation, the disciplinary authority i.e. the SSPO, vide impugned order dated 26.05.2010 (Annex.A/2), found her guilty of both the charges and imposed upon her a penalty of dismissal from service. Being aggrieved with the above, the applicant filed an appeal dated 09.07.2010 (Annex. A/12), which was rejected vide impugned order dated 29.02.2012 (Annex.A/1). Being aggrieved with the above, the applicant has preferred the present O.A. to quash and set aside the aforesaid impugned orders.

5. The respondents filed their reply to the O.A. on 05.09.2013 to which, a rejoinder was filed by the applicant on 27.05.2019.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant while placing on record, a copy of the judgment dated 28.01.2026 of Criminal Court, passed by the Special Judge whereby, she has been acquitted of all the charges framed under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. He further submitted that for the same incident an FIR 562/2005, was lodged at the Police Station Sardarpura, Jodhpur. He further submitted that since in the departmental inquiry and criminal case, the charges were identical based upon the same set of evidences, the penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority after her acquittal in the charges by the Criminal Court, is not sustainable. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the following judgments :

(i) Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7935/2023 decided by Hon’ble Apex Court on 04.12.2023.

(ii) G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2006 (5) SCC 446

Mehta

4- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]

(iii) Kuldip Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors. reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10

8. Learned counsel for applicant further contended that the department could not establish the fact that the amount was withdrawn by the applicant by putting forged signatures of account holders. The department has not proved that signatures on the withdrawal forms were not of the MIS Account holders. The applicant never worked alone in the Post Office. Learned counsel for applicant further contended that rather, it was the responsibility of one Sh. Laxman Singh, to check and verify all such transactions and then only authorize any payment of interest etc. to the concerned person or the holder of such account. Though, Sh. Laxman Singh was also issued a chargesheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, yet, he was awarded a penalty of reduction in pay by one stage for a period of two years along with punishment of recovery to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- vide order dated 31.05.2010 (Annex.A/17). The applicant, on account of work-load, could not check the withdrawal(s) of the interest pertaining to various MIS accounts. She was appointed on compassionate ground and was not perfect in the work. It is further contended that applicant did not mis-appropriate any amount. The criminal court has also acquitted her of all the charges.

9. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and material available on record, we would like to deal first contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant with regard to the effect of acquittal of the applicant in criminal case vide judgment dated 28.01.2026 on the result of the departmental inquiry. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramlal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175. It is the contention of the learned counsel

Mehta

5- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]

that after acquittal of the applicant from the criminal charges, the impugned order in departmental proceedings is liable to be quashed.

10. In the case of Ramlal (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified the following legal principles :- It has been held that, mere acquittal by a criminal court will not confer any right on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. However, the charges in the departmental inquiry and the criminal court are identical or similar and if the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same then the matter acquires a different dimension. If the Court in judicial review concludes that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of prosecution evidence, and prosecution miserably failed to prove charge, Court in judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances. The Court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive as has been relied upon in the case of G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446.

Hon’ble the Supreme Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings after satisfying itself that the findings of the appellate judge in the criminal case, was not just, not proved, as in fact, the charge even stood ‘disproved’ by the very prosecution evidence. Hon’ble the Supreme Court was also satisfied that in the teeth of the findings of the appellate judge, the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed thereon, cannot be allowed to stand.

11. It is pertinent to note that in the aforesaid matter, the main charge against the appellant was that, he altered his date of birth from 21.04.1974 to 21.04.1972 in the 8th Standard Marksheet for projecting himself to have attained majority at the time of recruitment as Constable

Mehta

6- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]

with Armed Constabulary. The appellate judge had clearly noted that in the original mark-sheet of 8th standard produced by the appellant his date of birth was clearly shown as 21.04.1972 while other documents produced by the prosecution were either letters or duplicate mark-sheets. In the above factual background, Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that the findings of the appellate judge clearly show that the charge against the appellant was not just ‘proved’, but rather stood ‘disproved’ by very prosecution evidence. Considering the judgment of appellate court in criminal case, Hon’ble Supreme Court after satisfying itself that in the teeth of the findings of the appellate judge, the disciplinary proceedings and the orders based thereon cannot be allowed to stand. Hon’ble the Supreme Court also observed that it is a well settled law that if the findings of the disciplinary authorities are arrived at after ignoring the relevant material, the Court in judicial review, can interfere. After scrutinizing the material Hon’ble Supreme Court was satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated and deserves to be quashed.

12. In the light of the above judgment, when we peruse the record of the present case, we find that the judgment of acquittal of the applicant of the charges, is not for the reason that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges. On the other hand, we find that the learned criminal court was not satisfied with the quality of evidence produced by the prosecution against the accused applicant herein.

After examining the substance of the judgment, we find that the learned criminal court has passed the order of acquittal on the theory of benefit of doubt. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that acquittal by criminal court in the present case, will not disturb the findings in the disciplinary proceedings. After perusal of the judgment of criminal court

Mehta

7- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]

and the record of the criminal proceedings, the order passed in the disciplinary proceedings, we are of the view that despite acquittal of the applicant, the findings of the disciplinary proceedings will stand unless, it is vitiated by lacunae in decision making process, or, not warranted by the evidence produced in the disciplinary proceedings.

13. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal (supra) clarified that Writ Court’s power to review the order of disciplinary authority is very limited. The scope of enquiry is only to examine whether the decision-making process is legitimate as held in the matter of SBI Vs. A.G.D. Reddy, reported in (2023) 14 SCC 391. As part of that exercise, the courts exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider whether the findings of the disciplinary authority have ignored material evidence and if it so finds, the courts are not powerless to interfere [referred to United Bank of India Vs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee reported in (2022) 13 SCC 329]. Keeping in view the above principle in mind, we have examined the material available on record. After examining the record, we find no material lacunae or illegality in decision making process adopted by each authority in disciplinary proceedings conducted against the applicant. The inquiry was conducted by an authorized inquiry officer. When the charges were read-over to her, she denied the charges. The applicant was granted proper time to engage her defence nominee. She was also allowed to examine the listed relied upon documents. She was also allowed to file additional documents. No proceedings were taken place in her absence. The applicant was allowed to cross-examine the departmental witnesses. The applicant presented herself as a defence witness. Inquiring officer prepared a detailed report on 26.02.2010, a copy of which was provided to her, to file representation within ten days.

Mehta

8- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]

The inquiry officer concluded that applicant admitted the transactions of the interest amount from the MIS Accounts, however, she did not admit that she herself withdrawn the money. As per the conclusion made by the inquiry officer, the withdrawal of the interest money was allowed without producing original pass books of account holders. The withdrawal form did not bear the signatures of the account holders. The applicant did not choose to cross-examine the account holders. She also found that the interest payable on MIS accounts had already been paid to their account holders.

14. Perusal of the record reveals that most of the defence taken by the applicant was of technical in nature which was not accepted by the inquiry officer. The inquiry officer summarized the defence raised by the applicant and answered each and every objection in a just and fair manner. When the incident of withdrawal of interest (as mentioned in first charge), took place, the applicant was working as a Postal Assistant whereas, at the time of withdrawal of interest amount as mentioned in second charge, she was discharging dual charge as Postal Assistant and of Sub Post Master, therefore, we find no illegality in the procedure adopted by the inquiry officer while holding the applicant guilty of the charges. The findings of the inquiry officer are fully supported by evidence.

15. After getting a copy of the inquiry report, the applicant availed the opportunity of defence by filing her representation on 26.03.2010 (Annex.A/10). The disciplinary authority after taking into consideration applicant’s representation and the inquiry report, passed a well reasoned order holding her guilty of the charges levelled and consequently imposed a penalty of dismissal from service. The applicant filed an appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority which was decided on 29.02.2012 (Annex.A/1) by the Post Master General, Western Zone, by a reasoned and speaking order.

Mehta

9- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]

16. The appellate authority has passed the order after dealing with each and every ground raised by the charged official in the appeal. In absence of any material to the effect that the findings by the disciplinary authority were not warranted by evidence, this Tribunal is not supposed to re- appreciate the evidence produced by both the parties. It is well settled legal position that this Tribunal does not act in the capacity of an appellate authority. The Tribunal exercises power of judicial review with a view that to examine whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are not supported by evidence or the disciplinary authority has ignored to take into consideration the material evidence. Since the applicant has failed to indicate any substantial lacunae in the findings of the disciplinary authority with regard to her guilt, this Tribunal need not reappreciate the evidence.

As per proved facts while working as Postal Assistant, the applicant withdrawn the amount either herself or allowed it to be withdrawn by other(s) without perusal and production of the respective Pass Books and making entries therein. She, while allowing the withdrawal of interest money under the MIS Scheme, also ignored the fact that interest was already paid to the account holders. Since the interest money was not payable, the applicant, Smt. Sarla Sharma, Postal Assistant, caused financial loss to the Department by accepting withdrawal forms of the interest money by unauthorized persons.

17. It is not in dispute that interest money was neither claimed by its real and actual account holders nor paid to them on the disputed dates. The account holders were already paid their due interest amount after making entries in their pass book. In our view, the conduct on the part of the applicant cannot be ignored for want of burden of work or unawareness of rules. In our view, looking to the nature of misconduct,

Mehta

10- [Original Application No. 80 OF 2013]

the punishment imposed upon the applicant cannot be termed as excessive or dis-proportionate to her conduct. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for applicant that the co-employee Sh. Laxman Singh, was imposed a lesser penalty compared to Smt. Sarla Sharma, the applicant herein, is concerned, we are of the opinion that said Sh. Laxman Singh was held guilty for not carrying out the prescribed checks. He failed to check the work of Smt. Sarla Sharma, applicant herein. The role of Sh. Laxman Singh was entirely different. As per the findings of the disciplinary authority against Sh. Singh, he did not carry-out the prescribed checks which were made fraudulently by Smt. Sarla Sharma, thus, the main person, responsible for fraudulent transactions, is Smt. Sarla Sharma, who failed to justify her act in the defence taken by her in the disciplinary proceedings.

18. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present O.A., hence, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

( Hukum Singh Meena) (Rameshwar Vyas) Member(Administrative)

Member (Judicial)

Jrm.

Mehta

Mehta

Mehta

Mehta