: 1 : wp.84.2011 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.84 OF 2011 Union of India .. Petitioner V/s. Shivappa M. Jabgond & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.D. Shetty with Mr.J.S. Deo for the Petitioner Ms.Leena Patil for the Respondent No.1 CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 P.C.: 1. The order impugned in this petition has been passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 8.9.2010. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has held that the penalty of removal from service of Respondent No.1 is excessive and highly disproportionate to the misconduct committed by him. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v/s. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, the Tribunal has directed the petitioner to reconsider the case of Respondent No.1 within three months from the date of the order for imposing a lesser penalty. : 2 : wp.84.2011 2. Respondent No.1 was working as a Gramin Dak Sevak, Sub- Post Master in the Department of Posts, Government of India. The allegation against respondent No.1 is that while working in the headquarters, he received premia towards two postal life insurance policies from a depositor. He entered the receipt in the RPLI Premium Receipt Book and issued the receipts to the depositor. He also made the necessary entries in the passbooks of the depositor which were duly signed and stamped. Corresponding entries were made in the RPLI Journal book. However, Respondent No.1 did not deposit the amount of `332/- in cash physically in the Government account on the day he received the amount from the depositor i.e. On 4.5.2002. He deposited the amount together with penal interest of `28/- on 25.7.2002. 3. A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against Respondent No.1 under Rule 10 of the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001. The enquiry officer found him guilty and the disciplinary authority accepted these findings and imposed the penalty of removal from service. Aggrieved by the punishment, the Respondent No.1 approached the Tribunal. : 3 : wp.84.2011 4. The Tribunal was impressed with the arguments advanced on behalf of the Respondent No.1 that the penalty imposed on him was excessive. It was pointed out on behalf of Respondent No.1 that he had served with the establishment for 29 years, without a blemish. It was further argued that an inadvertent lapse on the part of Respondent No.1 in not depositing the amount of Rs.332/- was not reason enough to deny him his retiral benefits. These arguments found favour with the Tribunal. 5. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi (supra), the Supreme Court observed thus: 18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court / Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. It the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing he disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases. impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. 6. In the present case, the Tribunal has not exonerated : 4 : wp.84.2011 Respondent No.1 from the act of misconduct committed by him. According to the Tribunal, the fact that Respondent No.1 had made entries in all the prescribed registers recording the receipt of the amount of Rs.332/- indicated that there was no intention to commit a fraud. The Tribunal has however found fault with the Respondent No.1 who had put in 29 years of service during which he had no handled cash amount to thousands of rupees everyday and his service was unblemished during this period. It was of the view that “an element of inadvertence cannot be ruled out”. The fact that the Respondent No.1 had also returned the amount together with the penal interest has also weighed with the Tribunal. Thus the Tribunal has only directed the Petitioner to impose a lesser punishment, commensurate with the misconduct committed by the Respondent No.1. 7. In our opinion, therefore, there is no error committed by the Tribunal requiring us to interfere in our writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Petition is rejected. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)