[2026:RJ-JP:26769-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4400/2026 URN: CW / 9804U / 2026 Ramswaroop Meena S/o Shri Prabhulal, Aged About 54 Years, Resident of Village Laxkana, Post Sali, Tehsil Chhabra, District Baran-225205, Ex. Postal Assistant At Principal Post Office Kota, Group-C, At Present R/o Village Lapakana, Post Pali, Tehsil Chhabra, District Baran (Rajasthan). (Matter Relating To Termination From Service) ----Applicant/Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Department of Post, Dak Tar Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001. 2. Director, (VP and DE), Ministry of Communication and IT, Department of Posts, Government of India, New Delhi - 110001 3. The Chief Postmaster General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur - 302007 4. The Post Master General, Rajasthan Southern Region, Ajmer - 305001 5. Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Kota Division, Kota - 324003 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.N. Sharma assisted by Mr. Avadhesh Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG assisted by Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary Ms. Niti Jain Bhandari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Judgment / Order 15/07/2026 [2026:RJ-JP:26769-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-4400/2026] This writ petition is directed against the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity "the learned Tribunal") whereby, the Original Application No.580/2025 filed by the petitioner/applicant (for short "the applicant") was dismissed, primarily, on limitation as also on merit. The relevant facts in brief are that while working with the respondents, the applicant was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 vide Memorandum dated 30.03.2009. After enquiry, his services were terminated by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 11.11.2011. The revision petition preferred thereagainst by the applicant came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.03.2013 and the review petition was also dismissed vide order dated 31.03.2014. After lapse of about eleven years, he assailed the validity and legality of the aforesaid orders by way of the Original Application No.580/2025 which came to be dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 03.11.2025, impugned in the instant writ petition, as supra. Assailing the impugned order, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant is qua quantum of the punishment. He submits that in view of gravity of charge levelled against him, the penalty of termination of his services is shockingly disproportionate and warrants interference by this Court. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 03.11.2025 be quashed and set aside and the punishment of termination of his services imposed by the [2026:RJ-JP:26769-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-4400/2026] Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 11.11.2011 be reduced suitably commensurate with the gravity of charge. Per contra, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, submitted that since, the original application suffered from inordinate and unexplained delay, it was rightly so dismissed on this count as also on merit. Countering the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, he submitted that the punishment of termination from services warrants no interference in view of gravity of charge, i.e., embezzlement of amount deposited by the account-holders with the Post Office where he was posted as Sub-Post Master. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. Since, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, while dismissing the original application, have not been assailed, we need not to examine the same. The only question for our consideration is as to whether the penalty of termination from services is so shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charge found to be proved against the applicant vide Memorandum dated 30.03.2009 so as to invite interference of this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction. The charge levelled against the applicant was of misappropriating for himself the amount deposited by the account-holders. Being Sub-Post Master, it was his statutory and moral obligation to ensure the safety of the amount deposited with the Post Office by the account-holders but, he misappropriated the amount so deposited for his own use. It amounted to gross abuse [2026:RJ-JP:26769-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-4400/2026] of the fiduciary duty cast upon him. On that premise, we do not find the penalty inflicted upon the applicant by the Disciplinary Authority on 11.11.2011 to be shockingly disproportionate or exorbitant so as to warrant interference by this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction. Resultantly, this civil writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J 10/Manish