SC upholds Removal of Gramin Dak Sevak for Proven Misappropriation of Depositors’ Funds:

SC upholds Removal of Gramin Dak Sevak for Proven Misappropriation of Depositors’ Funds

SC holds High Court exceeded judicial review limits; employee’s own admissions and records proved embezzlement during duty.

SC Upholds Removal of Gramin Dak Sevak for Misappropriating Depositors’ Funds

authorMeetu KumaridateNov 14, 2025
Last update on Nov 14, 2025
SC upholds Removal of Gramin Dak Sevak for Proven Misappropriation of Depositors’ Funds Indraj, appointed as a Gramin Dak Sevak/Branch Post Master in 1998, faced disciplinary action after the 2011 annual inspection uncovered that he had received recurring deposit and insurance premium amounts from depositors but failed to record them in the post office accounts, despite stamping their passbooks. A chargesheet issued in 2013 led to an inquiry in which he was given full opportunity, cross-examined witnesses, and ultimately admitted that he had used the money for household expenses. He later deposited the misappropriated amounts. The Disciplinary Authority removed him from service, and his statutory appeal and subsequent challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal were dismissed. The High Court, however, set aside the removal, holding that the admissions were influenced and the punishment unwarranted, prompting the Union of India to appeal.
Delhi HC Upholds NMC’s Rejection of MBBS Seat Increase for Faculty Shortfall at Kushwah Institute
Issue Before SC: Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and interfering with the punishment of removal despite a valid inquiry, clear admissions, and proved misappropriation.
Supreme Court: Company Buying Business Software for Commercial Purpose, Not Consumer Use, cannot file for Consumer Disputes
SC's Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the High Court had travelled far beyond the permissible scope of judicial review by reassessing evidence and questioning admissions made during the inquiry. The Court noted that the inquiry was fair, the respondent had full opportunity, defence assistance was provided, witnesses were cross-examined, and the misconduct, misappropriation of public funds, stood conclusively proved through stamped passbooks, missing entries in official records, and the respondent’s own signed explanations. Depositing the embezzled amount later did not absolve the misconduct. Finding no procedural defect or legal infirmity in the disciplinary process, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the penalty of removal from service. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2157
Up Next

Loading suggestions…