IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).NO. 11495 OF 2010(S) -------------------------- {OA.512/2008 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH} .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN NAIR, EX.GRAMIN DAK SEVAK SUB POSTMASTER, KOLLAD P.O., RESIDING AT PALAKULATH HOUSE, PARIYARAM P.O., PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM - 686 021. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SEBASTIAN SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI - 682 018. 2. THE SR.SUPDT OF POST OFFICES, KOTTAYAM DIVISION, KOTTAYAM. 3. SAJEEVAN B. (INQUIRY AUTHORITY), INSPECTOR POSTS, KOTTAYAM WEST SUB DIVISION, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, DEPT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.11495 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal from service, before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal was satisfied that Charge No.2 against the petitioner stood conclusively proved. In fact, going by the first sentence in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, even the applicant had submitted that it is only Charge No.2 that stood proved by the enquiry authority. However, the argument was that the amount involved was only Rs.3,884/-, that amount was covered by three money orders and hence it could be taken as a case where there was only a temporary misappropriation. The Tribunal, after adverting to the facts, concluded that the act of the applicant cannot be construed as an act of temporary misappropriation and the inconsistent and inconceivable stand taken to justify his act of recording as “paid” in respect of three money orders which were actually not paid has made the applicant untrustworthy. It must be remembered that he was holding the post of an Extra Department Sub Post Master. The Tribunal quite rightly took the view that having regard to the W.P.(C)No.11495 of 2010 :: 2 :: office held by the applicant, there was no question of the Tribunal finding that the quantum of punishment imposed on him is grossly excessive. The Tribunal noticed the proposition of law that it cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment. At best, if it is shockingly disproportionate, it will remit the matter to the authorities concerned. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge.