Termination upheld of Postmaster who embezzled deposit money by mere stamping passbooks of account holders.
In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld termination of an employee of post office who embezzled money of depositor by mere stamping passbooks of account holders with the receipt of the amount without making corresponding entries in the books of accounts maintained in the post office.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4856 (2025) (11) abcaus.in SC
The respondent in this case was a Gramin Dak Sevak/ Branch Post Master. During annual inspection, it was found that he had misappropriated account holder’s money by merely stamping their passbook mentioning the amount received but had not entered the same in the books of accounts of the Post Office.
Subsequently, he was issued a chargesheet for misappropriation of public funds. during the course of Departmental inquiry, the Postmaster cross examined all the departmental witnesses and did not lead any evidence in defence. While trying to explain the discrepancies, he admitted the guilt. The amount embezzled by him was deposited in the accounts of the account holders. He only prayed for forgiveness while reassuring that no such mistake will occur in future.
In terms of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the said Post Master was terminated from service. The matter travelled to High Court whereby the termination was quashed which resulted in Department of Posts filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble Apex Court
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that as per chargesheet the Postmaster had received total of Rs. 1900/- as monthly installments of recurring deposit accounts from the depositors but he had not recorded those entries in books maintained at the Post Office and kept the money with himself for personal use. Whereas in the passbooks of the respective account holders he entered the details of the amount received and balance, signed it and put the date stamp of the post office and returned the passbooks to the depositors.
Similarly, the said Postmaster had received the amount of Rs. 3666/- towards monthly installment due for the Gramin Dak Life Insurance Policies. He entered the amount received in the premium receipt book of the concerned policy holders, affixed the date stamp of the branch post office and returned the premium receipt book to the policyholder, but instead of depositing the above deposited amount in the Government account, he kept it for his own use.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that High Court had misdirected itself while extending the scope of jurisdiction which could be exercised in matter of judicial review. The merits of controversy were gone into. Even the admission made by the respondent and voluntary deposit of the amount misappropriated by him were dealt with and finally the punishment imposed on the respondent was set aside. He was directed to be reinstated back in service.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that High Court erred to hold that mere suspicion was not enough to punish him, 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. It is a matter of chance that the embezzlement made by the respondent came to the notice of the authorities that action could be taken against him while restoring the amount to the post office.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that mere deposit of the embezzled amount will not absolve an employee of the misconduct. Relationship of a customer with a banker is of mutual trust. Any account holder will be satisfied once an entry is made in his passbook regarding deposit of any amount by him in the post office where he had maintained the account.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the explanation given by the Postmaster for the embezzlement stating that on account of ignorance of the Rules, the passbooks of the account holders were stamped cannot be accepted. The Postmaster had been in service for about 12 years. Ignorance of rules of the procedure with so much experience cannot be accepted. There was no defect or error pointed out in the course of inquiry. The High Court had travelled beyond its jurisdiction in trying to explain the admission of the respondent which was nothing else but an afterthought
Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the High Court was set aside and the termination was upheld.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
Purchase of software had a nexus with generation of profits, therefore purchaser was not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act…
Supreme Court stays DGGI order on the issue of bar on two parallel GST proceedings in terms of Section 6(2)(b)…
Assessee could not said to indulged in penny stock sale on human probabilities without showing his involvement – ITAT deleted…
Before staying CESTAT order the High Court should have framed the substantial questions of law and thereafter could have passed…
Chartered Accountant issuing Form 15CB not required check genuineness or otherwise of documents submitted by his clients – Supreme Court…
Ongoing investigation qua absconding person, cannot be a ground to deny bail to person against whom the investigations have been…