lock blocking the said stamps, publications, etc. used
to be with the Post Master. Therefore, according to
him, he was not in exclusive custody of the postage
stamps, publications, etc. Though this contention of
the petitioner has not been accepted by the Enquiry
Officer, we are of the view that some concession ought
to have been given to the petitioner on this count. The
petitioner had deposited the entire amount in respect of
the shortage of postage stamps, publications, etc. even
prior to initiation of the disciplinary enquiry. This
was certainly a mitigating circumstance in favour of the
petitioner, which should have been considered while
fixing the quantum of penalty. It seems that this fact
has not been considered while passing the impugned
orders. In our view, in the circumstances of the
present case, the penalty imposed against the petitioner
removing him from service would be rather harsh and
illogical. We, therefore, think fit to modify the final
order by reducing the penalty of removal from service to
compulsory retirement as mentioned in Rule 11 (vii) of
the Rules. In our view, this penalty would be quite
adequate in the circumstances of the present case.
