H KRISHNA vs DEPARTMENT 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: “(i) To quash the (i) Memo No. F/3-4/15-16/Disc/KH dated at Channapatna the 01.08.2022, issued by the respondent No.4. Annexure-A5,

(ii) Memo No. BGR/VIG/14-02/HK/2022 08.06.2023, issued by the respondent No.3, Annexure-A8 and (iii) Order No. VIG/15- 08/2023 dated at Bengaluru-560001 the 19.01.2024, issued by the respondent No.2, Annexure-A10,

(ii) Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits with full pay and allowances and

S SARALADEVI

3 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

continuity of service from the date of his dismissal till the date of his reinstatement and treating the suspension period as on duty and

(iii) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts in brief as narrated by the applicant are that while he was working as Sub-Postmaster, Sathanur SO under Channapatna HO for a period from 16.06.2015 to 07.01.2016, he was placed under suspension pending inquiry and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. A Memorandum dated 29.01.2018 was issued framing three articles of charge. Thereafter, one more Memorandum was issued on 29.11.2018 containing five articles of charge, alleging that while he was working as Sub Postmaster, Dobbespet SO from 18.02.2011 to 10.05.2015 he had committed irregularities in payment of money orders six times. The applicant had credited Rs.9,55,800/- to the account of Post Office as reflected in the said charge memorandum dated 29.11.2018. Inquiry was conducted with reference to the charge Memorandum dated 29.01.2018. Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that all the articles of charge were proved against

S SARALADEVI

4 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

the applicant. So far as the articles of charge framed vide Memorandum dated 29.11.2018 is concerned, the inquiry proceedings initiated were kept in a state of suspended animation. Based on the findings of the inquiry in respect of charges levelled against the applicant vide Memorandum dated 29.01.2018, penalty order dated 01.08.2022 was issued dismissing the applicant from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government and the same has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. In the Revision Petition submitted by the applicant, the Revisional Authority has modified the penalty order as removal from service and sanctioned compassionate gratuity as admissible as a special consideration for the family of the applicant. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. Learned Counsel Shri A.R.Holla representing the applicant submitted that the facts and record discloses that there is no evidence to hold that the articles of charge were proved against the applicant. No inquiry was held following due procedure. The documents were not marked in the inquiry and applicant had no opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. The statement alleged to have been recorded in the preliminary inquiry have been considered to hold that the

S SARALADEVI

5 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

articles of charge were proved against the applicant. Learned Counsel further submitted that in the absence of any complaint from the aggrieved beneficiaries against the applicant, the departmental authorities have no basis to commence the investigation. The applicant was forced to remit Rs.9,55,800/- to the Post Office as per his statement dated 29.10.2021 and the same was termed as his voluntary payment. Further, holding an inquiry for non-accounting of Rs.28,800/- on 28.11.2015 and Rs.6000/- on 24.09.2015 alleging that these amounts were misappropriated by the applicant, is preposterous. The Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority have failed to consider the grounds urged by the applicant. The allegation made in the Article No.III of the charge against the applicant that he has thrown away the documents in the garbage dump near the Sathanur lake, is without substance as nobody has seen the applicant throwing the documents. In the absence of the eye witnesses, the said article of charge cannot be held as proved. There is no justification for imposition of penalty of dismissal/removal from service. The penalty imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. Accordingly, seeks for the reliefs claimed.

S SARALADEVI

6 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

4. Learned Counsel Shri S.Prakash Shetty representing the respondents referring to the reply statement filed on behalf of the respondents submitted that in view of the irregularities noticed in the past work of the applicant while he worked as Sub Post Master, Dobbespet Sub Post Office, concerned Inspector of Posts carried out past work verification of the applicant pertaining to Sathanur Sub Post Office for the period from 16.05.2015 to 07.01.2016 and declared that the applicant has shown certain e-Money Orders as paid, which were actually returned by the Branch Post Offices in account with Sathanur Sub Post Office to the remitter for various reasons. The applicant adopted the modus operandi of re-issuing such returned e-Money Orders to the delivery beat of Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer – Shri M.Nataraj of Sathanur Sub Post Office without the knowledge of the mail deliverer. Thereafter, the applicant reflected such payment as e-Money orders payment made at Sub Post Office and incorporated the paid amount in Sub Post Office Daily accounts of Sathanur Sub Post Office. The applicant immediately on realizing that the irregularities committed by him at Dobbespet Sub Post Office and Sathanur Sub Post Office have been detected by the concerned Investigating Officer, submitted a

S SARALADEVI

7 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

representation dated 07.01.2016 to Respondent No.4 and admitted to have committed irregularities and voluntarily accepted the misconduct. Further, the applicant voluntarily credited the misappropriated amount of Rs.9,55,800/- and assured to credit rest of the amount, if any, on completion of past work verification. The applicant was proceeded against under Rule 14 of CCs (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide Charge memo dated 29.01.2018, proceedings were conducted following the due procedure. After considering the material on record, the inquiry authority held that all the three articles of charge levelled against the applicant as proved. The applicant was given an opportunity to represent against the said inquiry report. In response, the applicant submitted his representation. Having regard to the representation submitted by the applicant vis-à-vis detailed analysis of the findings of the Inquiry Officer read with the records, the Disciplinary Authority passed the penalty order dismissing the applicant from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government. The same was upheld by the Appellate Authority but modified by the Revisional Authority only to the extent of removal from service in

S SARALADEVI

8 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

place of dismissal of service sanctioning compassionate gratuity as admissible.

5. Learned Counsel further submitted that the question of public complaint of aggrieved persons, does not arise, as the applicant has resorted to manipulation of office accounts and throwing away of the office records to destroy the evidence. The applicant has voluntarily credited Rs.9,55,800/- under UCR and stated to credit rest of the dues, if any, on completion of past work verification. Learned Counsel further submitted that all the cases need not be made as imputations in the memo of charges, only specific cases are made as articles of charge in order to arrive at final decision. Reasonable opportunity was provided to the applicant to prove his innocence, but no such evidence was brought out to disapprove the charges to show that e-Money Orders were paid to the concerned parties and the important documents were not thrown to the garbage. Thus, justifying the impugned orders, learned Counsel sought for dismissal of the OA.

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

S SARALADEVI

9 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

7. Charge Memo dated 29.01.2018 (Annexure A1) issued against the applicant reads thus:

“ARTICLE-I Shri Krishna H while working as SPM, Sathanur SO under Channapatna HO for the period from 16-5-15 to 7-1-2016 had shown Rs.2,400/- and Rs.26,400/- (total Rs.28,800/-) as cash paid for payments of e-Money orders (eMOs) to Sri. M.Nataraju, GDSMD of Sathanur SO in the Treasurer's cash book of Sathanur SO on 28-11-2015 without actually paying the amount to the said GDS and further shown the said amount in the daily account of Sathanur SO dated 28-11-2015 as eMO paid which was included in the total amount of eMOs paid Rs.5,67,400/- and thereby violated the provisions of Rule 29, 84, and 121 of Postal Manual Vol VI Part III and Rule 34 and 35 of FHB Vol.II.

Therefore, it is alleged that, Sri Krishna H, PA, Kanakapura SO while working as SPM, Sathanur SO had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, high ethical standards and honesty contravening the provisions of Rule 3

(1) (i) (ii)(vi) and 3(2) (i) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLE-II That the said Shri Krishna H while working in the said office during the said period had shown Rs.6000/- as cash paid for

S SARALADEVI

10 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

payment of e-Money orders to Sri.M.Nataraju, GDSMD of Sathanur SO in the Treasurer's cash book of Sathanur SO on 24-9-2015 without actually paying the amount to the said GDS and further shown the said amount in the daily account of Sathanur SO dated 24-9-2015 as eMO paid which was included in the total amount of e-MOs paid Rs.4,51,800/- and thereby violated the provisions of Rule 29, 84 and 121 of Postal Manual Vol VI Part III and Rule 34 and 35 of FHB Vol.II.

Therefore, it is alleged that, Sri Krishna H. PA, Kanakapura SO while working as SPM, Sathanur SO had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, high ethical standards and honesty contravening the provisions of Rule 3

(1) (i) (ii)(vi) and 3(2) (1) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLE-III That the said Shri Krishna H while working in the said office during the said period had thrown some of the documents of Sathanur SO which were traced by IP, Kanakapura sub division on 29-12-2015 in the garbage near Sathanur lake and in the gutter located opposite to Sathanur Sub post office building and the documents such traced were enlisted in the mahazar drawn by the IP, Kanakapura Sub Division on 29-12-2015.

S SARALADEVI

11 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

Thus by the above said act, it is alleged that, Sri Krishna H. PA, Kanakapura SO while working SPM, Sathanur SO had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, high ethical standards and honesty and thereby acted in a manner of unbecoming of Government Servant contravening the provisions of Rule 3 (1) (i) (ii) (vi) and Rule 3(1)(iii) and Rule 3(2) (i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

8. Articles of charge I and II deals with eMO paid vouchers to the extent of amount mentioned, actually not paid. Article of charge III deals with the attempt made by the applicant to destroy the evidence by throwing some of the documents of Sathanur SO in the garbage near Santhanur Lake in the gutter located opposite to Sathanur Sub Post Office building, which indeed were enlisted in the Mahazar drawn by the IP, Kanankapura Sub Division on 29.12.2015.

9. The applicant had worked as SPM, Dobbespet Post Office for the period from 18.02.2011 to 10.05.2015. Thereafter on completion of the tenure at Dobbespet, he was posted as Sub Post Master, Santhanur Post Office for the period from 16.05.2015 to 07.01.2016.

S SARALADEVI

12 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

10. While the Inspector of Posts, Nelamangala Sub Division was checking the records of Dobbespet Sub Post Office, noticed that e-Money Orders which were returned by Branch Post Offices under Dobbespet Sub Post Office, were shown as paid at Dobbespet Sub Post Office by issuing such e-Money Orders to delivery agents of Dobbespet Sub Post Office in the departmental software, without their knowledge. In view of such irregularities being noticed, the said Inspector of Posts carried out past work verification pertaining to the period from 18.02.2011 to 10.05.2015, while the applicant had worked as Sub Postmaster (SPM), Dobbespet Sub Post Office.

11. In view of the irregularities noticed in the past work of the applicant, Inspector of Posts of Kanakapura Sub Division carried out past work investigation of the applicant pertaining to Sathanur Sub Post Office for the period from 16.05.2015 to 07.01.2016. From the said investigation, it was detected that the returned e-Money Orders from the Branch Post Offices were shown as paid and incorporated the same in the Daily accounts of Sathanur Sub Post Office by the applicant.

S SARALADEVI

13 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

12. It is significant to note that the applicant voluntarily credited the misappropriated amount of Rs.9,55,800/-. While submitting the representation dated 07.01.2016. The applicant admitted the irregularities committed by him in the accounts of Dobbespet Post Office and Sathanur Sub Post Office and assured to credit rest of the dues, if any, on completion of past work verification. The relevant paragraphs of the said representation dated 07.01.2016 (Annexure R2) are extracted hereunder for ready reference: “I humbly submit the following few times for your kind consideration, sympathetic view and favourable orders deemed fit.

At the outset I beg pardon for my commissions and omissions while discharging my duties at Dobbesper SO and Sathanur SO. As you are aware the irregularities committed by me has been detected at the said SOs recently and my past work is being verified.

Sir, you may believe me or not I was about to dispose of a piece of land to adjust misappropriated money. It is a forefather’s property and therefore there was delay. But alas! Time did not wait for me; I am late to confess I implore before you that I am not a fraudulent person. As soon as the case has been detected I voluntarily accepted my wrong doings and expressed my willingness to make good the loss to the govt.

S SARALADEVI

14 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

exchequer. Without waiting for further directions from my superiors I have applied leave to make arrangements to make good the amount. I have already credited Rs.9,55,800/- Voluntarily under UCR as details below:

Sl. No. UCR No. Date Office Name Amount Amount Related to

28.12.2015 GCE Campus PO, Ramanagara 48,800/- Sathanur SO

28.12.2015 GCE Campus PO, Ramanagara 57,000/- Dobbespet SO

9906 01.01.2016 Channapatna HO 6,40,000/- Dobbespet SO

9907 01.01.2016 Channapatna HO 30,000/- Dobbespet SO

9915 04.01.2016 Channapatna HO 1,00,000/- Dobbespet SO

9924 06.01.2016 Channapatna HO 80,000/- Dobbespet SO

Total 9,55,800/-

I am also ready to credit rest of the dues, if any on my part, on completion of past work verification.

I joined the department as GDSBPM at Narayanapura BO a/w Kanakapura SO in 2004, initially in the stop gap arrangement against a case of POD. Later on I was selected to the post of BPM, Guttalahunse BO a/w Maralavadi SO worked there for 3 and half years. I applied for direct recruitment of PA exam and got selected under OBC category and working as PA since 15.10.2007. I have worked as PA at Kanakapura SO, Channapatna HO and at Dobbespet SO and now at Sathanur SO. I have a good record of service everywhere and you may go through my service record for kind perusal. I worked singly at Dobbespet double handed office for more than 3 years; most of the time in the routine at Dobbespet I have worked beyond

S SARALADEVI

15 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

my duty hours. I have extended all sorts of co-operation to my superiors, obeying and orders from time to time and more so by reaching the targets given. I have managed twelve BOs at Dobbespet SO and commanded good work and cooperation from the GDS under the SO. No where I shirked my responsibilities and I have been faithful and sincere throughout my service.

I bow my head in shame for the irregularities at Dobbespet SO and Sathanur SO. I had raised some loans for interest from private persons while taking care of the undivided family including the widow sister. In order to shoulder social obligations I had taken pains to adjust money at the hour of crisis and ultimately I had to succumb to the pressure of the lenders. Now I repent a lot for the commissions and omissions on my part, the greatest blunder ever committed by me. I deeply regret for the lapses on my part and sincerely beg pardon for the same. Kindly do not take harsh action against me as I have not done so with any malafide intention. I was about to adjūst money by selling my property, a piece of land.

I once again beg pardon for my mistakes and lapses and request your kind self to take lenient view as I have a family consisting of wife and small male child aged 2 years and eight months. My wife is presently pregnant of 8 months. I am also taking care of my mother who is 70 years old and widow sister with two children, male studied BE now working and

S SARALADEVI

16 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

female studying in final B.Sc. The entire responsibility of my family is upon me and hence this submission for objective view and sympathetic consideration of my case. Kindly grant me only one opportunity to correct my mistakes as this is the first time I am coming to the adverse notice of my superiors. I am a circumstantial victim but own my responsibility as a sincere employee of the great organization.

Further, I submit that while performing my bonafide duties, I have handled lakhs and lakhs of rupees under various schemes such as SB, RD, MIS, TD,NSC, KVP etc., but never misused a single pie. I swear in the name of the God that the said misappropriation is in eMOs only.

I pray for humanitarian consideration in this case and let me assure you sir that I shall never come to the adverse notice of my superiors till my last breath, I swear sir.”

13. Having accepted the misconduct by giving statement in writing as aforesaid in unequivocal, clear and unconditional manner, the applicant now cannot turn back and say that the same was obtained under threat and pressure. Submission made before the Disciplinary Authority during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, has sanctity in the eye of law and the same cannot be brushed aside merely on a subsequent ipse dixit statement of the applicant that the same was given under

S SARALADEVI

17 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

threat/pressure. If it was a genuine case, the applicant would have made compliant/report before the higher authorities regarding the same. In the absence of such allegations made against the respondents at the relevant point of time, the applicant cannot retract or resile from that admission in a later proceedings, now cannot take a defence in order to disagree the admission made in the representation-statement dated 07.01.2016.

14. It is not in dispute that the applicant has worked as Sub Post Master and handled Branch Office compilation work. Rule 84 of Chapter II of Postal Manual Vol. VI, provides that the Sub Postmaster is personally responsible for maintaining the accounts. The Sub Office account has to correctly and punctually written up before the office is closed for the day. The responsibilities of the Sub Postmaster and the treasurer or assistant will be the same as those of the head Postmaster and treasurer in a Head Office. As a Head of Office, it was the responsibility of the applicant to preserve the office records safely.

15. It is trite law that the degree of proof in departmental proceedings is preponderance of probability, whereas in criminal proceedings it is the proof beyond the reasonable doubt. It is significant

S SARALADEVI

18 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

to note that the applicant in his statement dated 16.08.2016 given before the Inspector of Posts, Kanakapura Sub Division placed on record as Annexure R36, confirmed that he became mentally depressed and destroyed the original documents, folded them and thrown with the wastage of the office. He also stated that he used notepad application in the system for correction and further confirmed that the documents which are noted in the Mahazar dated 29.12.2015 belongs to Sathanur Sub Post Office only and signature appearing in the documents are of his own. Tracing of the important documents of the office in crushed and torn condition in the gutter located opposite to the Sathanur Sub Post Office building when the allegation of misappropriation was unearthed at some other office coupled with the Mahazar drawn showing the details of the documents found, clearly indicates the attempt made by the applicant to destroy the evidence. It is not relevant who has thrown the important documents of the office in the gutter but the applicant has failed to keep the documents in the safe custody as required under the Rules.

16. The applicant has shown Rs.2,400/- and Rs.26,400/- paid to Shri M.Nataraju, GDSMD of Sathanur SO on 28.11.2015, the said Shri M.Nataraju, who was examined as SW 23, in his deposition has

S SARALADEVI

19 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

categorically denied the receipt of such amount from the applicant, though lengthy cross examination has been made by the applicant, nothing is elicited to discard the statements of SW 23- Shri M.Nataraju. Indeed, it is stated that he was on leave on the particular relevant date. A statement in writing is also given by Shri M.Nataraju to the said effect. It is immaterial whether these amounts were shown as, given either to the regular GDS MD or to his substitute when the regular GDS MD was on leave. The crucial point is that eMOs returned from Branch Offices as unpaid were shown as paid by the applicant, though actually not paid. Keeping the inquiry proceedings in suspension relating to the charge memo dated 29.11.2018 owing to the dismissal order passed in these proceedings, shall not vitiate the present proceedings.

17. It is well settled that the judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited. This Tribunal cannot sit in appreciation/re- appreciation of evidence. Judicial review is restricted to examining the decision making process than the merits of the decision itself. Inquiry was conducted nearly for about two years providing all the reasonable opportunities to the applicant to cross examine the witnesses and to prove his innocence. As could be seen from the records, the principles of

S SARALADEVI

20 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

natural justice and procedural fairness were followed in conducting the inquiry.

18. At this juncture it is apt to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and others reported in 1995 SCC (6) 749, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled that judicial review is not an appeal. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “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 disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review

S SARALADEVI

21 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

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

19. In the light of judgement in Chaturvedi, supra, 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

S SARALADEVI

22 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

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.

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

21. 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,

S SARALADEVI

23 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

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.

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

23. In State Bank of India v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde, (2006) 7 SCC 212, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:

S SARALADEVI

24 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

"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 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."

24. 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 after following the due procedure.

S SARALADEVI

25 OA 199/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

25. It is pertinent to note that the Appellate Authority confirmed with the order of Disciplinary Authority, however, Revisional Authority has taken a sympathetic view in modifying the order of dismissal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority confirmed by the Appellate Authority, in providing compassionate gratuity benefits as admissible as a special consideration for the family of the applicant in terms of the GDS Rules, replacing the order of dismissal as removal from service. The same being reasonable having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no ground to interfere with the same.

26. For the reasons aforesaid, OA is bereft of merit and accordingly stands dismissed.

No order as to costs.

sd/-

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

MEMBER(A)

MEMBER(J)

sd.

S SARALADEVI