amount due under the Money Order was not delivered to the addressee on time i.e., on 25.09.2000, which came to be disbursed only on later i.e., on 09.10.2000. This by itself is adequate enough to hold that there was dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent and hence he was not entitled to have a clean chit, exonerating him in all respects. The misconduct committed by the respondent had given rise to the cause of action, for the department to conduct an enquiry in accordance with the rules, finally culminating in the orders passed by the Disciplinary authority, modification made by the Appellate authority and the proceedings before the Tribunal by way of O.A. Absolutely no plea of malafides is raised against the Department and as such, the respondent (to the extent he could be treated as liable and responsible for the proceedings) is liable to suffer the consequences. In other words, the only point to be considered (having the lapse of the respondent established) is ; what should be the adequate punishment. Whether punishment of removal from the service could be regarded as appropriate
