Union Of India vs Indraj

2025 INSC 1313 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.13183 OF 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.31515 of 2025) (Arising out of Diary No.28631 of 2025)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. … Appellant (s)

VERSUS

INDRAJ … Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of the

High Court 1 dated 02.09.2024 passed in a Writ Petition2 filed by the

respondent. The High Court while setting aside the order dated

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2025.11.13 16:41:58 IST Reason: 1 High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur 2 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10369 of 2024

Page 1 of 9 23.02.2023 passed by the Tribunal3 in Original Application No.397 of

2015, had set aside the penalty of removal imposed upon the respondent.

2. From the facts available on record, it is evident that the

respondent was employed on 12.01.1998 as Gramin Dak Sevak/ Branch

Post Master. Certain irregularities were found during the course of annual

inspection on 16.06.2011 regarding misappropriation of public funds

where the respondent despite receiving amount from the account holders,

had not entered the same in the books of accounts though the passbook

of the account holders had been stamped. Chargesheet was served upon

the respondent on 17.12.2013. Inquiry Officer was appointed, who

submitted his report dated 11.11.2014 finding that the charges against the

respondent stood proved. After giving due opportunity of hearing to the

respondent and considering his reply, vide order dated 08.12.2014

passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the respondent was removed from

service. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the respondent preferred

statutory appeal, which was dismissed on 31.07.2015. Still aggrieved, the

respondent filed application before the Tribunal, which was dismissed vide

order dated 23.02.2023. Still not satisfied, the respondent preferred Writ

Petition before the High Court, which was allowed vide the impugned

order.

3 Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur

Page 2 of 9

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High

Court has travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested in it while examining the

punishment imposed upon respondent after due inquiry. There was no

defect pointed out by the respondent in the process of inquiry. He was

afforded due opportunity of hearing during the course of inquiry. Defence

assistance was also provided. In exercise of power of judicial review, only

the process of inquiry could be gone into and not the case on merits. It

was the admitted case of the respondent that he had misappropriated the

funds collected from the depositors for his personal use. When this came

to the notice of the authorities and pointed out to him, he deposited the

same. The plea of undue influence by the Inspector was taken much later

and not during the course of inquiry. The High Court had ventured into

examining the admissions made by the respondent on a new plea raised

by him. The order of the High Court being perverse, deserves to be set

aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

submitted that the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court does not call

for interference by this Court. He further submitted that all the arguments

raised by both the parties before the courts below, have been considered

thread bare. It was only a mistake on his part. The admission of guilt was

given under the influence of the Inspector. Even the depositors did not

Page 3 of 9 raise any grievance or pointed out any finger of misappropriation against

the respondent in that regard. The appeal deserves dismissal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper

book. The respondent was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak/ Branch Post

Master on 12.01.1998. His services are governed by Gramin Dak Sevak

(Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the

2011 Rules”). During annual inspection, on 16.06.2011, certain

irregularities were found and he was issued a chargesheet for

misappropriation of public funds on 17.12.2013. There were two charges

against him. The same are extracted below:

“Article-I That while working as Gramin Dak Sevak/Branch Postmaster, 1 K.K., Accounts Office, Chunavgarh during the period 31.07.2010 to 26.05.2011, Shri Indraj received the amount of monthly installments of recurring deposit accounts from the depositors as per the following details.

Amount RD Details of not taken Sl. Name of Date of Account Denomination Installments into No. Depositor deposit no. due account (Rs.) 1 734092 100/- Smt. Kamla 26.05.11 January-11 to 200/-

February-11 2 734112 200/- Sh. 31.07.11 February-10 1200/-

Chhaminder to 200/- Singh August-10 3 734318 100/- Kumari 31.07.11 May-10 300/- Krishna Devi to July-10 Total amount = One Thousand Nine Hundred only 1900/-

Page 4 of 9

As per the above details, Shri Indraj received the amount from the depositors and made deposit entries accordingly in the passbooks of the respective accounts and after entering the details of the balance, signed it and put the date stamp of the post office and returned the passbooks to the depositors, but instead of depositing the amount of the above installments in the government account, he kept it with himself for his own use. Thus, while working as a branch postmaster, Shri Indraj misappropriated the amount of monthly installments of recurring deposit accounts.

Article-II That during the aforesaid period, while functioning as Gramin Dak Sevak/Branch Postmaster, 1 K.K. Branch office, A/O Chunawadh Sub office, the said Shri Indraj received the amount of monthly installment due for the Gramin Dak Life Insurance Police from the policyholder on 23.06.2011 as per the following details.

Sl. No. Gramin Name of Date of Details Amount Dak Policy deposit of not taken Jeevan Holder Installm into Beema ents due account Policy No. (Rs.) 1 R/RJ/JD Sh. Jaipal 23.06.2011 From 3366/- /EA/101 Singh January- 750 10 to June-11 Total Rupees Three Thousand Three 3366/- Amount Hundred Sixty Six Only

Shri Indraj, while working as Branch Postmaster, received a total premium amount of Rs.3366/- from the above policyholder for the months of January, 2010 to June 2011. He entered the amount received in the premium receipt book of the concerned policy,

Page 5 of 9 affixed the date stamp of the branch post office and returned the premium receipt book to the policyholder, but instead of depositing the above deposited amount in the Government account, he kept it for his own use and misappropriated the amount of Rs.3366/-.”

6. In the aforesaid factual matrix noticed in the articles of charge,

it was alleged that the respondent had violated the provisions of Rule 131

of the Branch Post Office Manual, 6th Edition and that he had failed to

maintain integrity and devotion to duty as was required under Rule 21 of

the 2011 Rules. The respondent having denied the charges, an Inquiry

Officer was appointed vide order dated 06.01.2014.

7. It is not in dispute that during the course of inquiry, the

respondent was given due opportunity of hearing. Defence assistance

was also made available to the respondent. The respondent cross-

examined all the departmental witnesses and did not lead any evidence

in defence. While trying to explain the discrepancies, the respondent

admitted the guilt. The amount embezzled by him had already been

deposited in the accounts of the account holders. He prayed for

forgiveness while reassuring that no such mistake will occur in future.

8. It is even noticed by the Tribunal in its order that the

respondent had admitted in his statement dated 28.04.2012 that the

Page 6 of 9 money received by him from the account holders was spent by him for his

household purposes.

9. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report. Copy thereof was

supplied to the respondent who submitted his representation 4 against the

same. It was proved that the respondent had stamped the passbooks of

the account holders but did not make respective entries in the books of

accounts maintained in the post office, despite the fact that he had

received the amount from the account holders. When caught, he

deposited the amount.

10. Finding the explanation to be not satisfactory, the Disciplinary

Authority awarded punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved against

the same, statutory appeal was filed. He tried to explain the voluntary

deposit and the statement dated 28.04.2012 claiming that the same was

made under pressure from the Inspector. Finding no merit in the appeal,

the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The order of removal

from service passed in the appeal filed by the respondent was challenged

by the respondent by filing an Original Application before the Tribunal.

While appreciating the fact that there was no defect pointed out in the

process of inquiry as due opportunity of hearing was granted to the

respondent coupled with his admission and deposit of the amount which

4 Dated 25.11.2014

Page 7 of 9 he had misappropriated, the Tribunal did not find any merit in the Original

Application and the same was dismissed.

11. Still aggrieved, the respondent challenged the order passed in

the Original Application before the High Court. Vide impugned order, the

High Court had misdirected itself while extending the scope of jurisdiction

which could be exercised in matter of judicial review. The merits of

controversy were gone into. Even the admission made by the respondent

and voluntary deposit of the amount misappropriated by him were dealt

with and finally the punishment imposed on the respondent was set aside.

He was directed to be reinstated back in service. The High Court opined

that mere suspicion is not enough to punish him, not realizing the fact that

it was not a case of mere suspicion. The documents clearly established

the factum of embezzlement. The passbooks of the account holders were

stamped with the receipt of the amount with no corresponding entries in

the books of accounts maintained in the post office. It is a matter of chance

that the embezzlement made by the respondent came to the notice of the

authorities that action could be taken against him while restoring the

amount to the post office. However, the fact remains that mere deposit of

the embezzled amount will not absolve an employee of the misconduct.

Relationship of a customer with a banker is of mutual trust. Any account

holder will be satisfied once an entry is made in his passbook regarding

Page 8 of 9 deposit of any amount by him in the post office where he had maintained

the account. An account holder may not be privy to the manner in which

the accounts are maintained by the post office and also whether the

corresponding entries were made or not in the books of accounts

maintained there. The respondent tried to explain the embezzlement by

stating that on account of ignorance of the Rules, the passbooks of the

account holders were stamped. Such an explanation cannot be accepted

being farfetched. He had been in service for about 12 years. Ignorance of

rules of the procedure with so much experience cannot be accepted.

There was no defect or error pointed out in the course of inquiry. The High

Court had travelled beyond its jurisdiction in trying to explain the

admission of the respondent which was nothing else but an afterthought.

12. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. The

impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The punishment

imposed upon the respondent is upheld.

….........................J. (RAJESH BINDAL)

.............................J. (MANMOHAN) NEW DELHI;

November 13, 2025.

Page 9 of 9