J.P. Singh, J. 1. The petitioner, an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, in the Department of Posts India, was removed from service by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Udhampur vide Order No. F4/52/97/II dated 19.03.2001, finding that the Departmental Inquiry had found established the charges framed against him. The Charges framed against him read thus:- "Article-I That the said Sh. Ram Nath while working as EDBPM Thopal B.O. on 24-7-97 is alleged to have kept cash and stamps short amounting to Rs. 349.25 P and failed to produce before Inspecting Officer violating the provisions of note below Rule 11 (2) of B.O. Rules (6th edition). Article-II That the said Sh. Ram Nath while working as EDBPM Thopal B.O. during the period 18-3-91 to 24-7-97 is alleged to have accepted deposits from the depositors of following MSY, RD and TD accounts on the dates mentioned against each account, made entries of deposits in the Pass Books and failed to incorporate the amount to Govt. account thereby violating Rule-129 and 131(3) of BO Rules (6th edition). Sr. No. Account No. Date of entry in the Pass Book Amount of deposit not incorporated to Govt. A/cs. a) MSY 80010463 18-3-97 296/- b) "80010464 18-3-97 296/- c) "80010465 18-3-97 296/- d) "80010466 18-3-97 296/- e) RD- 11323 3/97,4/97,5/97,6/97,7/97 @ 250- Rs.50/- per month f) RD- 10808 5750-(Deposit @ Rs.250/- per month for 23 months) g) RD- 10813 1380-(Deposit @ Rs.60/- P.M. for 23 months) h) RD- 10814 1380 (Deposit @ Rs. 60/- P.M. for 23 months) i) 3 Yrs. 83014 TD 7-2-96 2900 Article-III Sh. Ram Nath the then EDBPM Thopal B.O while working in the aforesaid capacity from 18-3-91 to 24-7-97 is alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity in as much as he shown Dorangla M.O No. 3839 dtd. 2-6-97 for Rs.1000/- paid in the B.O Account dtd. 12-6-97 without actually making payment to the payee thereby violating the provisions of Rule-17 of EDA's (C&S) Rules-1964." 2. The Chief Postmaster General, Jammu and Kashmir Circle, Jammu dismissed the petitioner's Appeal vide Memo No.STD/7-54/08 dated 12.01.2009 finding no ground to interfere with the order of his Removal from Service. 3. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Branch (Circuit at Jammu) too did not find any merit in the petitioner's Original Application No. 286-JK of 2009 questioning his removal from service. 4. 3. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Branch (Circuit at Jammu) too did not find any merit in the petitioner's Original Application No. 286-JK of 2009 questioning his removal from service. 4. After having gone through the evidence of the Inquiry Committee and considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, the Tribunal recorded its findings as follows:- "We find that there is enough evidence against the applicant to hold him guilty of the charges leveled against him on the basis of which he has been punished. There is no irregularity or illegality in conduct of proceedings by the inquiry officer, disciplinary authority or the appellate authority. The disciplinary authority and appellate authority both have passed detailed orders which exhibit due application of mind. The applicant has himself admitted the charges and the same have also been proved in departmental inquiry. The applicant has been visited with penalty of removal from service, which appears to be justified as question of reposing of faith of public in the system is involved. The respondents have lost faith in the applicant and as such were within their power and authority to remove him from service. The penalty does not shake conscience of the Court and appears to be just and in order. Since departmental proceedings proceed on preponderance of evidence whereas in a criminal case strict rule of evidence is followed, the judgment in criminal case which came later than the point of time when penalty order was passed against him for misconduct under relevant Rules, would not help him. In view of these facts, this Original Application turns out to be devoid of any merits and is dismissed. No order as to costs." 5. In view of the categoric finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner had admitted his guilt and there was no violation of the rules during the conduct of the inquiry, the petitioner's learned counsel restricted the petitioner's challenge to the judgment of the Tribunal only to urge that the penalty awarded to the petitioner, being harsh and not commensurate with his misconduct, the interest of justice would require modification of the punishment to any other lesser punishment than Removal from Service. 6. Reliance is placed on G.Vallikumari v. Andhra Education Society and others, reported as 2010 (1) Supreme, 633. 7. 6. Reliance is placed on G.Vallikumari v. Andhra Education Society and others, reported as 2010 (1) Supreme, 633. 7. Per contra, respondents' learned counsel submitted that having been proved guilty of such type of a misconduct which had shaken the public confidence in the system as to the security of the amount of the depositors' in the Department of Posts India, the petitioner was not entitled to any leniency, additionally because he had not spared even his own sister in misappropriating her amount too, which she had deposited in the Post Office. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the records and the judgment referred to by the petitioner's learned counsel. 9. Looking to the gravity of the misconduct of the petitioner in misappropriating the amount of the depositors shaking the confidence of the depositors about the security of their money in the Postal Department, we do not find any ground warranting reconsideration of the petitioner's punishment by the respondents for taking a lenient view. The misconduct of the Delinquent Employee in G. Vallikumari's case, where the Apex Court had considered it appropriate to take a lenient view, was not so grave to affect the system as such, as has been established in the case of the petitioner. 10. There is, thus, no scope warranting consideration of the petitioner's case by the respondents for taking a lenient view in the matter. 11. Acquittal of the petitioner in one of the similar misconducts, for lack of evidence, by the Criminal Court, would not, in our view, affect in any manner, the proved misconduct of the petitioner on the charges other than those which were the subject matter of issue in the Criminal Court. 12. There is thus no merit in the Writ Petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.