Union Of India Through Chief Postmaster General vs. Maldevbhai G Odedara

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. /2023 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.9587/2018)

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

MALDEVBHAI G ODEDARA Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioner(s). Also heard Mrs. Saroj Raichura, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-delinquent.

3. The respondent was working as Gramin Dak Sevak(GDS) and was charged with misappropriation of depositors money on multiple occasion, while working as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) BPM, Mitrada BO. The respondent used to accept cash amount from the depositors towards depositing the same in their saving/RD accounts but on occasions, the delinquent did not deposit the cash received from the depositors in the depositors' respective accounts. He was then proceeded under the provisions of Rule 10 of Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Employment Rules, 2001 by the charge memo dated 30.08.2001 and eventually on charges being found to be established, the penalty of removal from service was inflicted on the Digitally signed by Deepak Singh Date: 2023.04.19 17:06:29 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

delinquent on 31.10.2003. The punishment of removal was sustained even after the remand order in the first round. The respondent then moved CAT, Ahmedabad Bench which by its order dated 20.08.2014 set aside the removal order. The Tribunal found the charges to have been proved but found the penalty to be disproportionate to the charges.

4. The resultant challenge by the employer to the High Court was dismissed, leading to the present appeal.

5. We have considered the materials on record and find that as the GDS, the respondent was posted in a fiduciary responsibility and there is no challenge to the finding that he had omitted to deposit the cash received from the account holders into the respective account of the depositors. Thus, a clear attempt was made by the delinquent to misappropriate the depositors' money. However, only because the delinquent admitted his guilt and had returned the money received from the depositors, a lenient view was taken in the matter ordering for substitution of the penalty of removal, by a lesser penalty.

6. The materials on record would indicate that it was the responsibility of the delinquent to receive cash from the account holders and deposit the same in their accounts. However, he misappropriated the cash amounts entrusted by the depositors. Thereby, he failed to live up to the responsibility as a postal department employee, entrusted with cash transaction. In these circumstances, the punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate to

2

the charges which have been proved.

7. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the interference with the penalty of removal by the High Court and by the CAT, Ahmedabad by treating the penalty as disproportionate, was not justified. It is not a penalty which shocks our conscience. Accordingly the judgments to this effect are set aside and quashed. The Appeal stands allowed to this extent.

8. Pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

.......................J. [ HRISHIKESH ROY ]

........................J. [ MANOJ MISRA ]

NEW DELHI; APRIL 13, 2023

ITEM NO.39 COURT NO.15 SECTION III

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).9587/2018

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-01-2017 in SCA No. 16765/2014 passed by the High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad)

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

MALDEVBHAI G ODEDARA Respondent(s)

Date : 13-04-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.

• CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
• For Petitioner(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, AAG Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
• For Respondent(s) Mrs. Saroj Raichura, Adv Mr. Haresh Raichura, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The Appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned in the Signed Order.

Pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

(DEEPAK JOSHI) (KAMLESH RAWAT) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed Order is placed on the File)