The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.31433 of 2025 Manas Ranjan Das …. Petitioner Mr. Nirod Kumar Sahoo, Advocate -versus- Union of India and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, D.S.G.I. Along with Mr. Milan Kumar, Central Govt. Counsel CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA ORDER 03.12.2025 is This matter taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Manas Ranjan Das with a prayer to quash the put off duty order dated 05.10.2015, charge sheet dated 26.02.2018, the inquiry report dated 12.08.2020, the proposed punishment order dated 23.09.2020, appellate order dated 03.01.2022, order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter 'Tribunal’). From the Original Application filed by the petitioner, it appears that the charge sheet was issued against him on 26.02.2018 under six headings of Page 1 of 12 Order No. 02. Signature Not Verified
Facts
Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:46:51 charges. The allegation against the petitioner was that while he was working in the capacity of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master in Baisinga Branch office in account with Badasuanlo S.O. under Dhenkanal Postal Division, he collected different amounts from the depositors to deposit in their respective Saving Bank/Recurring Deposits/Sukanya Samrudhi accounts, which he had entered in their respective Saving Bank/Recurring Deposits/Sukanya Samrudhi accounts passbook with his signature and Branch PO, Date, Stamp, but he did not credit the said amount into Government account. When the departmental proceeding was initiated under six headings and charge copy was served, the petitioner filed his reply and in the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found on the basis of documentary as well as oral evidence that the six charges against the petitioner to be proved beyond any doubt. The petitioner submitted his response to the report of the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary authority vide order dated 23.09.2020 passed the impugned punishment of removal from service, inter alia, holding that it is ordered that the petitioner in account with Badasuanlo S.O., under Dhenkanal H.O. (Now under put off duty) be removed from engagement of GDS with immediate effect. The appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority against the order of punishment and the Page 2 of 12 Appellant Authority rejected the appeal. When the matter was challenged before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal considered the principle, which has been laid down in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi -Vrs.- Union of India and others reported in (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 749 and Union of India- Vrs.- P. Gunasekharan reported in 2015 (2) Supreme Court Cases 610, wherein the scope of interference with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority has been laid down. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment which has been imposed on the petitioner is grossly inappropriate to the charges.
Legal Reasoning
do so. On perusal of the record, we find that the IO after giving due opportunity to the applicant, in a well reasoned and speaking report, came to the conclusion finding the
Arguments
However, Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned D.S.G.I. has pointed out from the counter affidavit that on conclusion of the verification work, it was found that the petitioner had committed permanent misappropriation of Rs.2,11,690.50 (rupees two lakhs eleven thousand six hundred ninety and fifty paisa) and temporary misappropriation of Rs.96,736.00 (rupees ninety six thousand seven hundred thirty six) in 34 (thirty four) number of Savings Account/ Recurring Deposit Accounts/Sukanya Samridhi Accounts and the normal interest and penal interest on the defrauded amount has been calculated and arrived at Rs.31,279.51 (rupees thirty one thousand two hundred seventy nine and fifty one paisa) and Page 3 of 12 Rs.13,671.36 (rupees thirteen thousand six hundred seventy one and thirty six paisa) respectively, therefore, the total amount of permanent loss sustained by the department due to fraud committed by the petitioner is Rs.2,56,641.37 (rupees two lakhs fifty six thousand six hundred forty one and thirty seven paisa), though the petitioner voluntarily credited amount of Rs.1,53,000.00 (rupees one lakh fifty three thousand) but he did not refund the rest of the amount. Admittedly, after receipt of the memorandum of charges on 01.03.2018, the petitioner has submitted his defence representation on 10.09.2018 and thereafter, the inquiry was conducted and the petitioner was given due opportunity during course of the inquiry. The department adduced the documentary as well as the oral evidence and accordingly charges levelled against the petitioner was held to be proved and the inquiry report was sent to the petitioner to submit written representation, however, the petitioner did not submit any representation against the finding of the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority taking into account the Inquiry Officer report and the related documents adduced in the inquiry, found that the charges against the petitioner are very grave and serious in nature and also the same involved financial misappropriation causing loss to the Government and Page 4 of 12 awarded punishment of removal from service. Though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Departmental Appellate Authority against the decision of the Disciplinary Authority, but the learned Appellate Authority after examining the points raised, has been pleased to observe that the petitioner betrayed the valuable customers and retention of the petitioner as GDS would not interest of the department. The Appellate Authority also found that the award of penalty of removal of the petitioner from engagement as awarded by the Disciplinary Authority was a judicious one and accordingly rejected the appeal. Learned Tribunal after carefully considering the submissions made by the respective parties and the ratio laid down in the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to above relating to the scope of interference in such matters has been pleased to hold that there was no violation of any provisions of rules or non-observation of principle of natural justice. In the operative portion, the learned Tribunal has been pleased to hold as follows: “11. It is not the case of the applicant that there was violation of any of the provisions of the rules or he was prejudiced for non- observation of principle of natural justice. According to the applicant, since he underwent medical treatment due to Page 5 of 12 suffering of Malady, he could not credit the amount of the depositors in the Govt. account, however, he credited the same on being orally instructed by the Inspector of Post Offices. The applicant did not produce any evidence that he was on approved leave during the dates shown to have received the amount from the depositors. Even if it is accepted that he was on leave due to his suffering it was his obligatory duty to make alternative arrangement to deposit the public money into Govt. account. However, he has admitted that on receipt of oral instruction, he deposited the amount in the Govt. account, which also establishes his oblique motive in not depositing the amount on his own after his recovery from illness. The deposit made by him in the Govt. account itself establishes that he had accepted the amount but did not make good into govt. account, which he did only when the same was unveiled in inquiry. In this connection, we would like to state that once an employee, who is facing disciplinary proceedings for some misconduct, admits guilt, he/she cannot be allowed to turn back and plead violation of principles of natural justice in case any action is taken against Page 6 of 12 him. In the case of Deputy Commissioner, KVS & Ors -Vrs.- J. Hussain, 2013 AIR SCW 5830, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that where an employee has admitted to an act of misconduct, it will not be unlawful for their employer to impose a penalty upon the employee without conducting an internal disciplinary enquiry into whether the misconduct occurred. In Karnataka Bank Ltd. -Vrs.- A.L. Mohan Rao, (2006) 1 SCC 63, the Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that the Court should not be guided by misplaced Sympathy or continuity ground, as a factor in judicial review while examining the quantum of punishment. It is not the case of the applicant that the charge sheet has been issued by an authority, who is incompetent to
Decision
applicant guilty. In view of the above, we find no justification to quash the charge sheet or the report of the IO holding the same as illegal or arbitrary in any manner. 15. Next contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the order of disciplinary authority cannot be accepted as Page 7 of 12 an order of imposing punishment. Under the rules, it is the Disciplinary Authority to impose the punishment and he cannot direct to any other authority to impose the punishment as has exactly been done in this case. Hence, in absence of any such order, the applicant has been kept away from discharging his duties, which is bad in law. In this regard, we have gone through the order of DA. The DA, in his order, directed that the applicant be removed from engagement of GDS with immediate effect against which the applicant has submitted appeal accepting the said order as an order of punishment of removal from service. If, according to him, the order of DA is not an order of punishment and in absence of any such order being passed subsequently, the applicant ought to have availed the opportunity by making representation to the DA which he had failed to do rather he submitted appeal to the Appellate Authority accepting the order of DA imposing the punishment of removal from service. In the appeal, he also failed to take this point as one of the grounds. Further, if his appeal was rejected, he should have availed the opportunity of revision by taking this particular aspect of the matter, which he Page 8 of 12 had also failed to do. Nowhere in the pleadings, he has taken this point as a ground before this Bench in the present OA. Be that as it may, we also find that the allegations against the applicant are grave and serious in nature, i.e. misappropriation of money deposited by the poor depositors. Thus, allowing this OA on the above score will entail reinstatement of the applicant into service which means giving him premium, who had been removed from service for proved misconduct of misappropriation of money of the poor depositors, who having faith on the system and have been keeping their hard earned money in the Post Offices to help them at the time of their need/when they are in old age. Hence, this stand, we are of the considered view, is hardly of any merit at this stage. 17. From the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is crystal clear that the power to interfere with the punishment should be exercised only if the delinquent employee is able to prove that the punishment inflicted on him is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges and, thereby, shocking the conscience of the Court or if it is in Page 9 of 12 contravention of the Rules, which are found lacking in the instant case. Hence, this stand of the applicant that the punishment is too harsh/disproportionate to the allegations made/proved against the applicant is hereby rejected. We have gone through the decisions relied on by the applicant but we find that the said cases are of no relevance to the case in hand since the facts and issues involved in those cases are completely different and distinct to the case in hand. 18. The allegations against the applicant are serious and grave in nature involving financial misappropriation of Govt. money. The omission and commission having surfaced during investigation, the applicant deposited the amount. The IO held the charges proved. The applicant claims that the removal from service imposed by the DA is disproportionate to the gravity of the allegation, in other words, it is an admission on the part of the applicant that he is liable to be imposed with the punishment but not removal. Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. In this regard, it is profitable to place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shyam Telelink Limited -Vrs.- Page 10 of 12 Union of India, (2010) 10 SCC 165 wherein, it was observed as under: “23. The maxim qui approbat non reprobat (one who approbates cannot reprobate) is firmly embodied in English Common Law and often applied by Courts in this country. It is akin to the doctrine of benefits and burdens which at its most basic level provides that a person taking advantage under an instrument which both grants a benefit and imposes a burden cannot take the former without complying with the latter. A person cannot approbate and reprobate or accept and reject the same instrument." 21. On indepth analysis of the facts and issues involved in the instant case, with reference to the law discussed/cited above, we find that none of the points raised by the applicant passes the test of the conditions stipulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) and P. Gunasekharan (supra) so as to make judicial interference in the orders impugned in this OA. Accordingly, this OA is held to be without any merit, and, is accordingly dismissed by leaving he parties to bear their Page 11 of 12 own costs.” In view of the settled position of law, the punishment which has been imposed on the delinquent employee can be interfered with, if it is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges and thereby shocking the conscience of the Court or if it is found to be in contravention of the Rules. In the case in hand, after going through the charges levelled against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding and the finding recorded thereon, it cannot be said that there was any laches on the part of the authority in conducting the disciplinary authority or that the punishment which has been imposed by the authority is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges and therefore, we are of the view that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge ( S.S. Mishra) Rajesh Page 12 of 12