Dismissed¶73

Sri. Bhojappa, v. the Union of India

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2026WP/6717/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Removal from service; misappropriation; Recurring Deposit accounts; Postal Assistant, Gangavathi; Articles of Charge 22.03.2012 (Annexure-A1); admission of charge before Enquiry Officer; Enquiry Report Annexure-A6; subsequent deposit of misappropriated amount; acquittal in criminal proceedings disposed 15.11.2021; disproportionate punishment plea; coerced acceptance plea; Central Administrative Tribunal O.A. No.170/00368/2017 dismissed 08.10.2018; inordinate delay; lack of diligence; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; writ petition rejected.

What did the court decide?

The Court held that the petitioner had not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, thereby disposing of the objections urged on disproportionality and on coerced/non-unequivocal acceptance of the charge. ¶51

Sri. Bhojappa, Vs the Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶73

Issue for consideration

Whether the punishment of removal imposed on the petitioner was disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the charge given his service of more than 34 years; whether the charge was ever unequivocally accepted (the asserted acceptance being alleged to be under coercion and pressure by the respondent authorities); and whether the Tribunal failed to look into the contentions raised by the petitioner. +2 more

¶39

Court's answer

¶51

Ratio / Principle

The Court found no error either in the order passed by the Tribunal (which dismissed the O.A. taking note of the petitioner's admission) or in the order passed by the disciplinary authority removing the petitioner from service.

¶64

Key takeaways

The petitioner was held to be not diligent in prosecuting his case, and there was an inordinate delay in his approaching the Court.ratio¶51
The Tribunal's order of 08.10.2018 was challenged before the High Court only in the year 2024, nearly six years after the date of the Tribunal's order.ratio¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Division Bench: Justice S.G. Pandit, author, and Justice K. V. Aravind), order dated 07.01.2026 in Writ Petition No. 6717 of 2024 (S-CAT) filed under Articles 226 and 227: rejects the petition of a 67-year-old ex-Postal Assistant (under order of removal) seeking to quash the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated 08.10.2018 in O.A. No.170/00368/2017, which had dismissed his challenge to the 2012 removal imposed for misappropriation of Recurring Deposit collections at Gangavathi (Articles of Charge dated 22.03.2012 covering 17.04.2006 to 22.05.2010, Annexure-A1). The petitioner had accepted the charge before the Enquiry Officer and later deposited the misappropriated amount; the Enquiry Report (Annexure-A6) recorded his admission and held the charges proved. Although acquitted in criminal proceedings disposed of on 15.11.2021, and although counsel urged disproportionality (more than 34 years of service) and coerced, non-unequivocal acceptance, the Court found no error in the Tribunal's order or in the disciplinary authority's removal order; it censured the nearly six-year delay in challenging the Tribunal's order (petition filed 2024) and the further delay of more than three years after the criminal case ended, held the petitioner not diligent, and rejected the writ petition.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:693-DB WP No. 6717 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶10

WRIT PETITION No. 6717 OF 2024 (S-CAT)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. BHOJAPPA, S/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, EX-POSTAL ASSISTANT, (UNDER ORDER OF REMOVAL) AT PRESENT: C/O A. RAVI PRASAD, No-08, K. No.135, 3^RD MAIN, MUNIREDDY LAYOUT, G. B. PALYA, POST BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560068.

¶14

(BY SRI DINESH S. K., ADVOCATE)

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶18

THE POST MASTER GENERAL, NORTH KARNATAKA REGION, DHARWAD - 580 001.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:693-DB WP No. 6717 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, GADAG DIVISION, GADAG - 582 101.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI B. PRAMOD, CGCFOR R1 TO R3)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.170/00368/2017 DATED 08/10/2018 (ANNEXURE-A).

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶30

Petitioner, a dismissed Postal Assistant, is before this

¶31

Court questioning order dated 08.10.2018 in O.A. No.170/00368/2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal¹ wherein, the petitioner had questioned the order of removal on proved misconduct of misappropriation .

¶32

Heard learned counsel Sri. Dinesh S.K., for the petitioner and learned CGC Sri.B. Pramod for respondent

¶33

1 CAT

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:693-DB WP No. 6717 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Nos.1 to 3-Postal Authorities and perused the entire writ

¶38

petition papers.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has put in more than 34 years of service and punishment of removal imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the charge. Further, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has not accepted the charge and there is no unequivocal acceptance by the petitioner. Further, learned counsel would submit that the acceptance of charge, if any, by the petitioner is under coercion and pressure by the respondent authorities. Therefore, he submits that the respondent authorities could not have imposed the punishment of removal. Further, learned counsel would submit that CAT also failed to look into the contentions raised by the petitioner and as such, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

¶40

Per contra, learned CGC Sri. B. Pramod, for respondent authorities would submit that the petitioner

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:693-DB WP No. 6717 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

accepted the charge before the Enquiry Officer as well as in his reply submitted to the articles of charge. Learned counsel invited attention of this Court to Annexure-A6Enquiry Report wherein, he submits that charges are proved on the basis of the admission of the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that the charge against the petitioner is misappropriation of the amount deposited by the depositors and when serious charge of misappropriation is proved, the respondent authorities are justified in imposing the penalty of removal from service. Thus, learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶45

Further, learned counsel would submit that order of removal is passed in the year 2012 and the appellate order is of the year 2015. The order of removal and appellate order were challenged before the Tribunal in the year 2018 and O.A was dismissed by order dated

¶46

08.10.2018. The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner was also disposed on 15.11.2021 and thereafter

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:693-DB WP No. 6717 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

in the year 2024, the present writ petition is filed. It is submitted that there is an inordinate delay in approaching this Court. Hence, on this ground also learned CGC would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶51

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire petition papers, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting his case and there is an inordinate delay in approaching this Court.

¶52

The charge against the petitioner in terms of Articles of Charge at Annexure-A1 dated 22.03.2012 is that while he was working as Postal Assistant at Gangavathi during the period from 17.04.2006 to 22.05.2010 has accepted the deposits in the Recurring Deposit² Accounts but failed to credit the amount of RD deposit into the Post Office Accounts on the dates 2 RD

¶53

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:693-DB WP No. 6717 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

mentioned in the charge memo. It is further alleged that

¶57

on receiving the deposit amount, the petitioner made entries in the passbook and impressed the date stamp and authenticated the same with his initials, but failed to account for the said amount of deposits into the PO Accounts.

¶58

The said charge was accepted by the petitioner

¶59

before the Enquiry Officer and it is also seen that the petitioner has subsequently deposited the amount of misappropriation. The Enquiry Report at Annexure-A6 makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner has accepted the amount of deposits in respect of the SB accounts entries made in the passbook and having failed to account for the same. The Enquiry Officer, recording the admission of the petitioner, held that charges against the petitioner are proved.

¶60

In the criminal proceedings initiated against the

¶61

petitioner, though he was acquitted, the Criminal Court has come to the conclusion that only the admission of the

¶62

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:693-DB WP No. 6717 of 2024

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

petitioner would not be sufficient, but the prosecution has to prove the charge with other corroborative materials. The Tribunal, under impugned order, taking note of the admission of the petitioner, rightly dismissed the O.A. We do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal or order passed by the disciplinary authority to remove the petitioner.

¶65

As noticed above, the order of removal is passed in the year 2012 and appellate order is passed in the year 2015. The petitioner approached the Tribunal three years thereafter in the year 2018 and the impugned order is passed by the Tribunal on 08.10.2018. The said order is challenged before this Court in the year 2024 after nearly six years from the date of Tribunal's order.

¶66

The only explanation offered by the petitioner is that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner concluded in the year 2021 and thereafter, he has approached this Court. There is also delay of more than three years in approaching this Court from the date

¶67

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:693-DB WP No. 6717 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

of disposal of the criminal case, which clearly indicates the

¶71

lackness on the part of the petitioner.

¶72