The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on November 13, 2025, has allowed an appeal filed by the Union of India, setting aside a High Court directive to reinstate a Gramin Dak Sevak who had been removed from service for misappropriation of public funds.
A bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan upheld the employee’s removal, holding that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in matters of judicial review by interfering with the merits of a departmental inquiry. The apex court emphatically observed that the subsequent deposit of the misappropriated amount does not absolve an employee of the misconduct.
The judgment arose from Civil Appeal No. 13183 of 2025, filed by the Union of India against a judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur dated 02.09.2024. The High Court had allowed a writ petition filed by the respondent, Indraj, setting aside his penalty of removal and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jodhpur Bench, which had upheld the disciplinary action.
Background of the Case
The respondent, Indraj, was employed as a Gramin Dak Sevak/Branch Post Master on 12.01.1998. During an annual inspection on 16.06.2011, certain irregularities concerning the “misappropriation of public funds” were discovered.
It was found that the respondent, despite receiving deposit amounts from account holders and stamping their passbooks, “had not entered the same in the books of accounts” maintained at the post office.
A chargesheet was served upon the respondent on 17.12.2013, outlining two specific articles of charge:
- Article-I: Alleged misappropriation of Rs. 1900/- from three Recurring Deposit accounts between 31.07.2010 and 26.05.2011.
- Article-II: Alleged misappropriation of Rs. 3366/- received as premium for a Gramin Dak Life Insurance Policy between January 2010 and June 2011.
The charges alleged that the respondent “kept it with himself for his own use,” thereby violating Rule 131 of the Branch Post Office Manual and failing to “maintain integrity and devotion to duty” under Rule 21 of the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.
Departmental Inquiry and Prior Proceedings
An Inquiry Officer was appointed on 06.01.2014. The Supreme Court judgment noted that it was “not in dispute” that the respondent was given a “due opportunity of hearing” and provided with “Defence assistance” during the inquiry. The respondent cross-examined departmental witnesses but did not lead any evidence in his defence.
During the inquiry, the respondent “admitted the guilt.” It was noted by the Tribunal that the respondent admitted in a statement dated 28.04.2012 that the money received “was spent by him for his household purposes.” He subsequently deposited the embezzled amount and, in the inquiry, “prayed for forgiveness while reassuring that no such mistake will occur in future.”
The Inquiry Officer, in a report dated 11.11.2014, found the charges stood proved. After considering the respondent’s representation, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 08.12.2014 imposing the penalty of “removal from service.”
The respondent’s statutory appeal was dismissed on 31.07.2015. In the appeal, he claimed his earlier admission was made “under pressure from the Inspector.” An Original Application filed before the CAT was subsequently dismissed on 23.02.2023, with the Tribunal finding “no defect pointed out in the process of inquiry.”
However, the High Court, in the impugned order, allowed the respondent’s writ petition and directed his reinstatement.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The counsel for the appellants (Union of India) argued that the High Court “travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested in it” for judicial review. It was submitted that “only the process of inquiry could be gone into and not the case on merits,” especially when there was no defect in the inquiry process and the respondent had admitted the misappropriation. The plea of “undue influence,” it was argued, “was taken much later and not during the course of inquiry.”
Counsel for the respondent countered that the High Court’s judgment was “well-reasoned” and that the incident was “only a mistake.” He reiterated the claim that the “admission of guilt was given under the influence of the Inspector.”
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court found that the High Court “had misdirected itself while extending the scope of jurisdiction which could be exercised in matter of judicial review.”
The bench observed that the High Court had “The merits of controversy were gone into” and had wrongly opined that “mere suspicion is not enough to punish him.” The Supreme Court corrected this, stating, “not realizing the fact that it was not a case of mere suspicion. The documents clearly established the factum of embezzlement. The passbooks of the account holders were stamped with the receipt of the amount with no corresponding entries in the books of accounts maintained in the post office.”
Addressing the respondent’s act of returning the money, the Supreme Court held: “However, the fact remains that mere deposit of the embezzled amount will not absolve an employee of the misconduct.”
The judgment underscored the nature of the respondent’s duty, stating, “Relationship of a customer with a banker is of mutual trust.” It noted that an account holder relies on the passbook entry and “may not be privy to the manner in which the accounts are maintained by the post office.”
The respondent’s explanation that he stamped the passbooks “on account of ignorance of the Rules” was dismissed by the court as “farfetched.” The bench observed: “He had been in service for about 12 years. Ignorance of rules of the procedure with so much experience cannot be accepted.”
Concluding that the High Court had “travelled beyond its jurisdiction” by accepting a plea (coercion) that was “nothing else but an afterthought,” the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
“For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The punishment imposed upon the respondent is upheld,” the court ordered.
