BHEMANGOUDA K POLICE PATIL vs DEPTT OF POSTS on 29 October 2026

ORDER

Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)

The applicant has filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: “(a) That the impugned order passed by Respondent No.5 dated 24.03.2023 bearing Memo No.NKR/VIG/APPEAL/065/2022 Annexure-A1 may be set aside in the ends of justice.

S SARALADEVI

3 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

(b) That necessary directions be issued directing Respondent No.1 to continue with service of Applicant in the ends of justice.

(c) That any other reliefs deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be granted.

(d) That the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1 dated 21.10.2021 in Memo No.GDG/F/V1/03/ Chikkenakoppa BO/2019-20, Annexure A5, may be set aside in the ends of justice.”

2. Facts in brief are that the applicant while working as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) at Branch Office Chikkenakoppa, which is coming under Sub Division at Koppal, was issued with charge memo dated 21.04.2021 which culminated in the order of compulsory discharge from his engagement with monetary benefits (i.e., SDBS etc.) and GDS Gratuity, proportionate to engagement period vide order dated 21.10.2021. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred Writ Petition No.104892/2021 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The said Writ Petition was dismissed vide order dated 08.11.2022 observing that the Writ Petition is not maintainable for not exhausting the alternative remedy

S SARALADEVI

4 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

of appeal available under the Rules. However, liberty was reserved to avail the alternative remedy and Respondent No.3 was directed to release the gratuity and other benefits, if not already released, if the petitioner is legally entitled to, within the time frame fixed. Pursuant to which the applicant has preferred an appeal unsuccessfully before the Appellate Authority. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA.

3. Learned Counsel Shri Hemachandra C.H., representing the applicant submitted that the Respondent No.1 without following the due procedure of law in conducting the inquiry, discharged/terminated the applicant from service vide impugned termination order dated 21.10.2021. Learned Counsel further submitted that the nature of the work of the GDS is to book the money order, allowing customers to open savings account, recurring deposits, register rural postal life insurance and book registered AD. The applicant had the responsibility to book the articles from the Branch Post Office, Chikkenakoppa and forward it to Sub Office Kuknoor for further course of action. The Inspector of Posts, Koppal Sub Division, has inspected the office of the applicant on 30.12.2019 and submitted report on 10.01.2020 alleging administrative

S SARALADEVI

5 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

irregularities against the applicant to which the applicant has given sufficient explanation. The same has not been properly appreciated by the Respondent No.1 in passing the impugned order of termination. The reasons recorded by the Respondent No.1 that the applicant has accepted the charges levelled against him, is untenable for the reason that the said statement was taken under threat and pressure. Hence seeks for interference of this Tribunal.

4. Detailed reply statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned Counsel Shri Sayed S. Kazi representing the respondents submitted that it was reported by the Inspector of Posts, Koppal Sub Division that on his surprise visit to Chikkenakoppa BO a/w Kuknoor SO on 10.10.2019, he noticed that the closing balance of the Branch Post Office dated 10.10.2019 was Rs.87,384/- but the applicant had produced cash amounting to Rs.37,384/- only and produced unaccounted eMO paid vouchers worth Rs.10,200/-. It was stated by the applicant that due to technical problems eMO paid vouchers could not be charged to BO accounts and hence they were retained at BO as a part of office cash. As regards difference of amount of Rs.39,800/- in office cash, the applicant had taken the defence that eMO paid vouchers amounting to Rs.39800/- were sent

S SARALADEVI

6 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

to Kuknoor Post Office for resolving technical issues. On inquiry SPM Kuknoor SO confirmed that no such eMO paid vouchers were handed over by the applicant to him. No acknowledgement of SPM Kuknoor SO for having received such eMO paid vouchers or any list of such eMO paid vouchers stated to be sent to Account Office, were produced either by the applicant or retained as office copy. Due to shortage of cash to the extent of Rs.39,800/- which was charged to UCP on 11.10.2019 at Chikkenakoppa BO and on perusing the case details, the work conduct and integrity of the applicant not being found satisfactory, he was placed under off duty with effect from 17.02.2020. The applicant has not returned the BO furniture, documents and other valuable assets to the department on his termination of engagement, as such a complaint was lodged against the applicant in Kuknoor Police Station under Crime No.24/2023 dated 28.02.2023. Thus justifying the impugned order of termination of the applicant, confirmed by the Appellate Authority, learned Counsel seeks for the dismissal of the OA.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

S SARALADEVI

7 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

6. Factual aspects are not in dispute. The articles of charge issued vide charge memo dated 21.04.2021 to the applicant reads thus: “ARTICLE-I That the said the Bheemanagouda K Policepatil, GDS BPM (POD) Chikkenakoppa BO a/w Kuknoor SO under Koppal HO during the period from 16.03.1981 to 2.02.2020 has kept office cash short to the extent of Ps. 74306/- (Seventy four thousand three hundred six only), thereby violated the provisions of Rule 11 of “Rules for Branch Offices” (Sixth Edition 2nd Reprint) and Rule 177(1), 177(2), 177(3) read with Rule-11 ibid thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty contravening the provision of Sub Rule (ii) of Rule-21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020.

ARTICLE-II That, the said Shri. Bheemanagouda K Policepatil, GDS BPM(POD) Chikkenakoppa BO aw Kuknoor SO under Koppal HO while working in the aforementioned post during the aforementioned period, has denied to receive/acknowledge the POD memo No: GDG/F/Misc Chikkenakoppa BO/2020-21 dated 17.02.2020 issued by the Supdt. of Post Offices Gadag Division Gadag on 20.02.2020

S SARALADEVI

8 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

and denied to hand over the BO records/documents/electronic peripherals to Inspector Posts Koppal Sub Division. Even after being informed that he was placed on off duty as per the orders of the competent authority, continued to detain the Departmental documents, instruments and furniture in his custody.

Thus, by his above acts, it is alleged that, the said Shri. Bheemanagouda K Policepatil, GDS BPM (POD) Chikkenakoppa BO a/w Kuknoor SO under Koppal HO, failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a GDS (Sevak) contravening the provision of Sub Rule (iii) of Rule-21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020.

ARTICLE-III That, the said Shri Bheemanagouda K Policepatil, GDS BPM (POD) Chikkenakoppa BO a/w Kuknoor SO under Koppal HO while working in the aforementioned post during the aforementioned period, his work was found to be unsatisfactory for more than 4 years continuously. In spite of instructions issued to the BPM during the inspections he was reluctant to work as per rules of the Department. The result of the inspections of Chikkenakoppa Branch Post Office carried out by various officers on 08.11.2017. 15.12.2018, 28.06.2019 and 30.12.2019 were continuously not satisfactory.

S SARALADEVI

9 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

Thus by his above acts, it is alleged that, the said Shri Bheemanagouda K Policepatil, GDS BPM, (POD) Chikkenakoppa BO a/w Kuknoor SO under Koppal HO, failed to maintain devotion to duty contravening the provision of Sub Rule (ii) of Rule-21 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020.”

7. The main ground urged on behalf of the applicant is that no inquiry proceedings have been held as per the provisions of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. Indisputedly, the applicant submitted his representation dated 30.04.2021 against the articles of charge and denied all the charges framed against him. As such in order to conduct departmental inquiry, the inquiry officer and presenting officer were appointed vide memo dated 11.05.2021. A preliminary inquiry in the case was held on 08.09.2021. During the said hearing, the applicant admitted all the three articles of charge unconditionally. He also tendered a written statement in this regard to the Inquiry Officer, which is placed on record as Annexure R1. In the said written statement, he voluntarily admitted the charges and asked to conclude the inquiry. Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report dated 13.09.2021 concluding that all the three articles of

S SARALADEVI

10 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

charge framed against the applicant are ‘proved’ due to the charges being admitted by the applicant. Copy of the said Inquiry Officer’s report was forwarded to the applicant directing him to submit his representation on the said report. Subsequent to which vide representation dated 25.09.2021, the applicant stated that he had not kept the office cash short, that as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, the Put off Duty was revoked and he had rejoined the duty and case may be closed if he had done unsatisfactory work as he has only two years of service left. Disciplinary Authority after considering the material on record imposed the penalty of compulsory discharge from engagement with monetary benefits (i.e., SDBS etc.,) and GDS Gratuity proportionate to engagement period rendered by the applicant with immediate effect, vide memo dated 21.10.2021. Since the applicant refused to receive the copy of the final proceedings, a Mahazar was drawn on 03.11.2021 in the presence of the villagers by the Inspector of Posts, Koppal Sub Division and Memo dated 21.10.2021 was pasted on the wall of the Post Office and on the applicant’s house, as per Annexure R2.

8. Writ Petition No.104892/2021 filed by the applicant against the penalty order dated 21.10.2021 has been dismissed by the Hon’ble High

S SARALADEVI

11 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

Court of Karnataka for not availing the alternative remedy of appeal, however, with certain observations. Pursuant to which, the applicant has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which has been rejected vide order dated 24.03.2023.

9. The applicant having admitted the charges uncontionally in writing as per Annexure R1 and having requested to conclude the inquiry without further extension, now cannot turn back and say that the same was obtained under threat and pressure. Any statement made by the charged official during the inquiry proceedings is binding. Knowing well the effect or repercussion of the statements, the applicant has accepted the charges levelled against him vide his written statement dated 08.09.2021. That being so, he cannot turn back and take a defence contrary to his statement that he has given such statement in writing on 08.09.2021 due to pressure, more so when the acceptance is made categorically stating that the said statement has been given without any pressure. No complaint or report has been made by the applicant immediately against the statement dated 08.09.2021 to the higher authorities, if taken under threat and pressure. Even in his representation dated 25.09.2021 to Inquiry Officer’s report, after concluding the inquiry proceedings, no such allegation is made. As a senior GDS of the

S SARALADEVI

12 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

department, the applicant should have submitted proper response to the Inquiry Officer’s report. The applicant was provided with all the opportunities to prove his innocence. No procedural lapse is established in issuing the penalty order by the Disciplinary Authority.

10. It is significant to note that the applicant produced cash of Rs.37,384/- only against the BO closing balance of Rs.87,384/- and he produced unaccounted eMO paid vouchers of worth Rs.10,200/-. Further the applicant failed to produce the eMO paid vouchers for Rs.39,800/- before the Inspector of Posts, Koppal Sub Division and informed that the paid vouchers of eMO amounting to Rs.39,800/- were sent to Kuknoor Sub Post Office for resolving technical issues, but no relevant records such as acknowledgment of Sub Postmaster Kuknoor SO for having received such eMO paid vouchers or any list of such eMO paid vouchers, has been submitted. Confronting inquiry was also made with respect to the eMO vouchers of Rs.39,800/- with SPM Kuknoor SO, who totally denied the receipt of such eMos. Having regard to the gravity of charges proved, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the penalty of compulsory discharge from engagement of the applicant with monetary benefits (i.e., SDBS etc.) and GDS Gratuity proportionate to engagement period rendered by the applicant. In our considered

S SARALADEVI

13 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

opinion, this penalty cannot be held to be disproportionate to the charges proved or shocking the conscience of the Court.

11. It is well settled that the adequacy of evidence adduced during disciplinary inquiry cannot be gone into in judicial review. In Para 12 and 13 of the judgment in B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held thus: “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the

S SARALADEVI

14 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re- appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.

13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented. The appellate authority has co- extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718], this Court held at page 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent

S SARALADEVI

15 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.”

12. In the light of judgement in Chaturvedi, supra, it is certain that in the present case, the findings or conclusion are based on some evidence reached by the inquiry authority entrusted with the power, accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, and the conclusion receives support therefrom, as such the scope of judicial review by the Tribunal is limited. Strict adherence to Evidence Act are not required to be made applicable in the disciplinary proceedings, instead, they are governed by the principles of natural justice and “preponderance of probability” rather than “beyond reasonable doubt. The principles of natural justice were duly followed during the inquiry. No procedural lapses are found in the inquiry proceedings.

13. The cognate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.458/2024 dated 16.10.2025 (Miss Poornima Suresh Shedgeri and Union of India and others), considering identical issue referring to catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, held that nature of work of Postman and Bank is the same in relation to the money transactions. Thus, it is clear that

S SARALADEVI

16 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

no leniency can be shown to the Post office employee when charges against him have been proved in the disciplinary proceedings.

14. It is trite that maintaining absolute integrity is paramount especially, when the postal service handles public money, valuable goods and sensitive documents. The principle of strict punishment when an employee of Department of Posts is found guilty of misconduct, particularly involving fraud, embezzlement or breach of trust, leniency is generally discouraged. The Hon’ble Apex Court and the other judicial forums have consistently ruled that in cases of financial irregularities or misappropriation of public funds, the only appropriate punishment is typically dismissal or removal from service. Courts have emphasized that the actual amount misappropriated does not matter, whether the fraud involved is small or large sum, the loss of confidence in employee is total. Sympathy of the past clean record cannot be proven to mitigate the dishonesty.

15. In Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah and others v. Hoti Lal, and another (2003) 3 SCC 605, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

S SARALADEVI

17 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

"10. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable...."

16. In State Bank of India and others v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde, (2006) 7 SCC 212, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: "21. Confronted with the facts and the position of law, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that leniency may be shown to the respondent having regard to long years of service rendered by the respondent to the Bank. We are unable to countenance with such submission. As already said, the respondent being a bank officer holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. The respondent was a Manager of the Bank and it needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer so that the confidence of the public/depositors is not impaired. It is for this reason that when a bank officer commits misconduct, as in the present case, for his personal

S SARALADEVI

18 OA 440/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

ends and against the interest of the bank and the depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands and he does not deserve to be dealt with leniently."

17. Nature of work of post office and Bank is the same in relation to the money transactions. Thus, it is clear that no leniency can be shown to the post office employee when grave charges against him have been proved in the disciplinary proceedings. Considering all the material aspects, Appellate Authority has rightly dismissed the appeal, which cannot be faulted with.

18. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the OA. Accordingly, OA stands dismissed.

No order as to costs.

sd/-

sd/- (DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)

MEMBER(A)

MEMBER(J) sd.

S SARALADEVI