More Stories

Informist, Thursday, Nov. 13, 2025

 

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court Thursday ruled that mere deposit of embezzled amount will not absolve an employee of misconduct. The apex court set aside a Rajasthan High Court order that had reinstated Indraj, a branch post manager, back to service after observing that mere suspicion was not enough to punish him. 

 

It was alleged that Indraj, despite receiving amounts from the account holders, had not entered the same in the books of accounts, though the passbook of the account holders had been stamped. While trying to explain the discrepancies, Indraj had admitted guilt. The amount embezzled by him had already been deposited in the accounts of the account holders. He prayed for forgiveness while reassuring that no such mistake would occur in the future. 

 

The top court said that the high court had misdirected itself while extending the scope of jurisdiction which could be exercised in matters of judicial review. The high court did not realise the fact that it was not a case of mere suspicion, said the apex court, adding that the documents clearly established the factum of embezzlement.

 

The bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan observed that the relationship of a customer with a banker is of mutual trust. Any account holder will be satisfied once an entry is made in his passbook regarding deposit of any amount by him in the post office where he had maintained the account, said the bench. An account holder may not be privy to the manner in which the accounts are maintained by the post office and also whether the corresponding entries were made or not in the books of accounts maintained there, the bench added.

 

Indraj tried to explain the embezzlement by stating that on account of ignorance of the rules, the passbooks of the account holders were stamped, the top court noted. Such an explanation cannot be accepted being farfetched, said the court, adding that Indraj was in service for about 12 years. Ignorance of rules of the procedure with so much experience cannot be accepted, said the court. "There was no defect or error pointed out in the course of inquiry. The high court had travelled beyond its jurisdiction in trying to explain the admission of the respondent (Indraj) which was nothing else but an afterthought," said the court. 

 

In 2011, certain irregularities were found during the course of annual inspection regarding misappropriation of public funds where Indraj, despite receiving amounts from the account holders, had not entered the same in the books of accounts, though the passbook of the account holders had been stamped. Thereafter, an inquiry officer was appointed, who submitted his report in 2014 finding that the charges against Indraj stood proved. After giving due opportunity of hearing to Indraj and considering his reply, a disciplinary authority ordered for his removal from the service.  End

 

Reported by Surya Tripathi

Edited by Deepshikha Bhardwaj

 

For users of real-time market data terminals, Informist news is available exclusively on the NSE Cogencis WorkStation.

 

Cogencis news is now Informist news. This follows the acquisition of Cogencis Information Services Ltd. by NSE Data & Analytics Ltd., a 100% subsidiary of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. As a part of the transaction, the news department of Cogencis has been sold to Informist Media Pvt. Ltd.

 

Informist Media Tel +91 (22) 6985-4000

Send comments to feedback@informistmedia.com

 

© Informist Media Pvt. Ltd. 2025. All rights reserved.