Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan held that the reinstatement of a Branch Post Master, earlier removed for retaining amounts collected from depositors and a policyholder, could not be sustained. Noting that the matter was decided on November 13, the Court observed that restoring the misappropriated sums after being confronted does not erase the underlying misconduct. The Bench found that the employee had received payments, stamped passbooks, and failed to record the deposits in official accounts, and that the inquiry had afforded full opportunity to respond. Concluding that the High Court had exceeded its review authority in interfering with the penalty, the Court restored the original order of removal.

The matter concerned an appeal filed against a judgment of the High Court, which had set aside the disciplinary penalty imposed on an employee serving as Gramin Dak Sevak/Branch Post Master. The employee had been appointed in January 1998. During an annual inspection conducted on June 16, 2011, irregularities were noticed relating to the receipt of amounts from depositors and a policyholder that were not entered into the official accounts of the post office. Although the passbooks and receipt books had been stamped, the deposits were not recorded, and the employee had retained the money.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Bail Orders In NDPS Case; Directs Fresh High Court Hearing On Statutory Satisfaction Under Section 37 Threshold In Cocaine–Methamphetamine Import Case

A chargesheet was issued on December 17, 2013. An Inquiry Officer was appointed, and the report dated November 11, 2014 found the charges proved. The employee was afforded an opportunity to respond and admitted that the money had been used for personal purposes. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter imposed the penalty of removal from service on December 8, 2014. A statutory appeal was dismissed on July 31, 2015.

The Court recorded that “mere deposit of the embezzled amount will not absolve an employee of the misconduct.” It explained the significance of trust in such financial dealings, observing that “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 deposit of any amount by him in the post office where he had maintained the account.”

The Bench further noted that “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.”

Turning to the employee’s conduct during the inquiry, the Court pointed out that “it was the admitted case of the respondent that he had misappropriated the funds collected from the depositors for his personal use.” It also recorded that “when caught, he deposited the amount.” The Court stated that “ignorance of rules of the procedure with so much experience cannot be accepted.”

The Bench stated that “the High Court has travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested in it while examining the punishment imposed upon respondent after due inquiry.” It reiterated that “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.” The Court also noted that the belated claim of pressure influencing his admission had no foundation, recording that “the plea of undue influence by the Inspector was taken much later and not during the course of inquiry.”

Finally, the Court concluded that “the High Court had travelled beyond its jurisdiction in trying to explain the admission of the respondent which was nothing else but an afterthought.”

Also Read: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Issuance Of Occupancy Certificate For Party Office, Slams Authorities For Withholding Approval Despite Building Being “Fit For Occupation”

The Court directed: “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.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Brijender Chahar, A.S.G. Mr. Karan Chahar, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Mr. Pallav Mongia, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Sammi, Adv. Mr. Krishan Kant Kumar, Adv.

Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Indraj
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1313
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 13183 of 2025
Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Manmohan