IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6079 of 2009(S) ------------------------- OA.46/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: --------------- T.M. GIRIJA AGED 51 YEARS, W/O. LATE VENUGOPALAN CHANKALATH HOUSE, P.O.PANAMKATTUKARA, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN 680 623. BY ADV. SRI.BOBY MATHEW SRI.E.T.MATHEW RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE POST MASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI 682 016. 2. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, THRISSUR DIVISION, THRISSUR 680 001. 3. SUB DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR OF POST OFFICES WADAKKANCHERY SUB DIVISION, THRISSUR DIVISION 680 582. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DHAK BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG NEW DELHI-1. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6079 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the applicant in O.A.No.46/2008, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The petitioner was working as an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master of Panamkattukara Post Office, Wadakkanchery, Thrissur District since 1986. The Branch was inspected by the competent authority on 6.7.1999. It was found that there was a shortage of cash to the tune of Rs.8,366.05/-. It was also noticed that though a money order for Rs.1,500/- was received on 1.6.1999, intimation of the same was given to the payee only on 10.6.1999. The petitioner was suspended from service. An information was lodged before the local police and a crime was registered against her. Simultaneously, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against her, based on the above W.P.(C) No.6079/2009 2 two allegations. The Enquiry Officer found her guilty of the first charge, concerning shortage of cash to the tune of Rs.8,366.05/-. Regarding the second allegation of delay in intimating the receipt of money order was reported as partially proved. 3. On service of the copy of the enquiry report, the petitioner submitted her explanation. On the very same day of inspection, the writ petitioner made good the shortage of cash by making payment of the same. She also pointed out that the cash was kept in her nearby residence and therefore, there is no misappropriation. She prayed for leniency. But, the disciplinary authority rejected her explanation and ordered removal of her from service by Annexure A2 order. She appealed. The appellate authority by A4 order dismissed the appeal. So, the O.A. was filed challenging A2 and A4. 4. The petitioner challenged the findings of the Enquiry Officer. She also contended that the appellate authority did not give her personal hearing. She further pointed out that the grounds raised in the appeal memorandum were not properly W.P.(C) No.6079/2009 3 considered. Even assuming, the allegations are correct, the punishment imposed on her was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence charged, it was contended. But, the Tribunal was not impressed by the submissions of the writ petitioner. It was found that the allegations were proved in the enquiry. The C.A.T. did not accept the contention of the petitioner that the shortage of cash was not due to misappropriation, but it was kept in her house. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the application by Ext.P11 order. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P11. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact the first charge was not proved and the finding in the enquiry report that there was misappropriation is not correct. The petitioner's residence was near to the Post Office and she kept the money there. But, the authorities did not accept that explanation and relied on her initial statement before the Inspecting Officer that the money was utilised by her and she will replace it. It was not proper for the authorities to rely on the statement from which she has already retracted. Further, it W.P.(C) No.6079/2009 4 is submitted that the misconduct found against her was only a solitary incident in her whole service and therefore the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. 6. The finding of the authorities below including that of the Tribunal that there was temporary misappropriation of funds, even though she replaced the same, is a finding of fact, which we cannot disturb in these proceedings. Further, even assuming, the money was kept in her nearby residence, the same also will amount to misappropriation. We are also not impressed by the contention that the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. A Post Master, who is the custodian of cash, has been found to have misappropriated money. Such a person cannot be retained in service. If, the competent disciplinary authority takes such a view, the same cannot be described as perverse warranting interference by the appellate authority/reviewing authority. W.P.(C) No.6079/2009 5 In the result, we are of the view that no ground has been made out warranting interference with the impugned order, Ext.P11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps