Supreme Court Restores Removal of Gramin Dak Sevak for Embezzling Deposits, Says Trust Is the Core of Banking

The Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of a gramin dak sevak (GDS) who was found to have misappropriated deposits made by post office account holders, observing that the banking system rests entirely on mutual trust between customers and institutions.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan set aside a 2024 judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which had overturned the penalty of removal imposed on the branch post master. The High Court had held that the findings were based on “mere suspicion.”

The Supreme Court disagreed. It noted that during an inspection in June 2011, officials detected clear irregularities: several account holders’ passbooks bore stamps acknowledging receipt of funds, but the corresponding entries were missing from the post office’s official ledgers.

Video thumbnail

The bench said this was not a case of conjecture but of proven embezzlement.

READ ALSO  SC Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Killing of the Jharkhand Judge

“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,” the court observed.

The judges emphasised that such misconduct strikes at the foundation of the banking relationship.

“Relationship of a customer with a banker is of mutual trust,” the bench said, adding that customers cannot be expected to verify internal entries made by the post office.

READ ALSO  Rajasthan HC fines two officials for ignoring lake survey orders

The employee tried to defend himself by claiming ignorance of the rules and procedures, but the court rejected this as implausible given his 12 years of service. “Such an explanation cannot be accepted being farfetched,” it noted.

The court also clarified that merely returning the misappropriated amount does not wipe out the misconduct.

A departmental chargesheet had been issued in December 2013, followed by a full-fledged inquiry in which the charges were found proved. After considering his reply, the disciplinary authority ordered his removal in December 2014.

READ ALSO  Some Out of Box Thinking Needed to Save Judicial Time and Unclutter System: SC

Allowing the Centre’s appeal, the Supreme Court restored that order, holding that the High Court’s interference was unwarranted.

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles