- (1.) Writ petitions by the Union of India directed against the order dated 25.11.2011 passed in OA No.359/2009 and Misc. Application No.248/2009 in OA No.359/2009.
(2.) By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the application filed by the respondent herein who had been removed from his post of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master in Narayanapura Branch Office, on the ground of two articles of charge, namely, "ARTICLE I That Shri Shivaramu, while functioning as GDS Branch Postmaster, Narayanapura BO in account with Kanakapura SO for the period from 30.3.1989 to 20.3.2001 has shown the M.O. No.2339 dated 19.2.2001 of Tamsar Bhandara HO payable to Sri. N. Channaiah, Narayanapura Village, as paid on 23.2.2001 by forging the signature of the payee without actually paying the amount to the payee. By the said act, Sri. Shivaramu has acted in contravention of Rule 10 of Book of Rules for Branch office [Seventh edition, re-print] and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required under Rule 231 of Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevaks [Conduct and Employment] Rules, 2001. ARTICLE II That Shri Shivaramu, while functioning as GDS Branch Postmaster, in the above said Office, during the aforesaid period has shown MO No.130/00 dated 20.11.2000 for Rs.400/- Kanakapura SO payable to Smt. Jayamma, W/o. Puttachari Chikkabettahalli Dakhale, Doddabettahalli, as paid on 28.11.2000, whereas the said Smt. Jayamma W/o. Puttachari, had already expired on 20.3.1999 itself. By the said act, Shri. Shivaramu has acted in contravention of Rule 10 of Book of Rules for Branch Offices [Seventh edition, Reprint] and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required under Rule 21 of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks [Conduct and Employment] Rules, 2001." having been proved against him by the Enquiry Officer.
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent while working as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master in Narayanapura Branch Office, had indulged in serious acts of misconduct and that he had been delivering money orders to wrong persons and therefore the above two charges had been leveled against him. The charges were denied and enquiry was conducted in this regard. The Enquiry Officer gave a report on 24.11.2004 that the charges are held proved based on the evidence adduced on behalf of the employer and the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of removal from service as per the impugned order dated 28.02.2005.;