New Delhi, Nov. 13 - A bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan of the Supreme Court on Thursday set aside a Rajasthan High Court order that had reinstated a Gramin Dak Sevak accused of misappropriating deposits from rural account holders. The atmosphere in Court No. 6 was steady yet slightly tense, as both sides repeated arguments that had travelled through the departmental inquiry, the Central Administrative Tribunal, and the High Court.
Background
The case dates back to inspections held in 2011 at a small post office in Jodhpur district. Indraj, employed as a Gramin Dak Sevak/Branch Post Master since 1998, was accused of taking recurring deposit installments and life-insurance premiums from villagers, stamping their passbooks, but not entering the transactions in the official ledgers.
During the hearing, the bench briefly scanned the records. The numbers may seem small ₹1,900 in RD deposits and ₹3,366 in insurance premiums but, as one government lawyer quietly remarked in the corridor, “In a village post office, trust is everything.”
A chargesheet was issued in 2013. The departmental inquiry found the charges proved, and Indraj was removed from service in December 2014. His appeals before the department and later the Tribunal failed.
However, in 2024, the Rajasthan High Court reinstated him, calling the case “not free of doubt” and suggesting that the admission of guilt may have been influenced by an inspector.
Court's Observations
Inside the courtroom, the Supreme Court bench appeared unconvinced by the High Court’s reasoning. Justice Bindal, referring to the inquiry record, remarked at one point,
“The bench observed, ‘When a person admits the charge, deposits the amount, and does not challenge the inquiry process, reopening merits is beyond judicial review.’”
The Court pointed to several aspects:
- Indraj had cross-examined witnesses but led no defence evidence.
- He admitted in a 2012 statement that he used the collected money for household needs.
- He later deposited the missing sums only after the discrepancies surfaced.
The judges noted that the High Court had treated the case as if it were a criminal trial requiring airtight proof, rather than a service misconduct proceeding. Justice Manmohan added during the exchange,
“Judicial review cannot turn into re-assessing every factual inch of a disciplinary inquiry.”
The bench also emphasised that stamping passbooks without entering the amounts in the government books was not a mere procedural slip but a clear breach of trust, particularly in rural postal banking where depositors rely entirely on the accuracy of their passbooks.
Decision
After a brief consultation between the two judges on the bench, the Court dictated its order:
- The Supreme Court allowed the Union of India’s appeal.
- The High Court’s reinstatement order was quashed.
- The original penalty of removal from service was restored.
The Court concluded firmly that the High Court had “travelled beyond its jurisdiction,” overlooked the respondent’s own admissions, and ignored the settled limits of judicial review in departmental penalty matters.
And with that, the matter ended the discipline order now stands reinstated in full.
Case Title:- Union of India & Ors. vs. Indra
Case Number:- Civil Appeal No. 13183 of 2025