ORDER : M. JOTHIRAMAN, J. Under assail is the order dated 02.08.2019 in OA.No.1139 of 2014 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai bench. The unsuccessful applicant before the Tribunal has preferred the present writ petition before this Court. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows :- 2(i). The petitioner was working as GDS BPM @ Thavalaveeranpatti branch post office from 03.04.1988 onwards. On 13.02.2013, the Inspector of Posts, Manapparai Sub Division had inspected the Post Office and placed him under put off duty and it was ratified by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Karur Division. The respondents had issued charge memo under Rule 10 of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct & Engagement) Rule 2011 with two charges. After conducting enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority had removed the petitioner from service on 30.12.2013. The main charges levelled against him was shortage of amount of Rs.16,899.35. When the Mail Overseer inspected the office, since the building in which the BPO was functioning was in a damaged condition, he had kept the amount safely in his residence. Even though, he stated the above facts to the Main overseer he did not permitted him to take back money which is 300meters away from the Post Office. As per rules of Postal Department, the Post Master were permitted to keep the cash in safe place which can be produced for inspection as and when necessary. The allegation of misappropriation of money which came as money order is also a false statement. He has not fabricated the money order receipt which belong to one Sivalingam. Therefore, he had sought for sending the acknowledgment receipt to Forensic Department for examination, but the enquiry officer did not permit the same. 2(ii). On 30.12.2013, the enquiry officer without appreciating the evidences in proper perspective held that the charges levelled against him were proved. The petitioner after receiving the copy of enquiry report had submitted his representation, without considering the representation, accepted the enquiry officers findings and imposed major penalty of removal from service. As against the order of removal, he preferred a departmental appeal. On 13.03.2014, the said departmental appeal was rejected. As against the order passed by the 3 rd respondent, the petitioner approached the Tribunal to set aside the order of removal and to reinstate him with service and consequential benefits. 3. As against the order of removal, he preferred a departmental appeal. On 13.03.2014, the said departmental appeal was rejected. As against the order passed by the 3 rd respondent, the petitioner approached the Tribunal to set aside the order of removal and to reinstate him with service and consequential benefits. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the action initiated against the petitioner by the Mail Overseer was contrary to the Rule 11 of the Rules for Branch Offices which permitted the concerned GDS BPM to keep safe custody of the cash at their discretion. The Mail Overseer without any application of mind intimated the said shortage of cash of Rs.16,899.35 to the Inspector of Post, Manaparai Sub Division, Manaparai and closed the Branch Post Office and took custody of the keys. He would further submit that at about 12.30pm, the Inspector of Police arrived to the Branch Post Office and started inspecting the alleged shortage of cash and the petitioner had informed that he had kept the cash in safe custody in his house and he was willing to produce the same, provided the Inspector of Post did not permitted to bring the cash. The Inspector of Post, without appreciating the conduct of the petitioner had initiated the Departmental proceedings. He would submit that the Tribunal has failed to consider the Rule 11 of Rules for Branch Offices and also failed to consider the fact that the building in which the post office in question was locked was a public building without any adequate security and it was responsibility of the petitioner to keep the cash in safe custody. He would submit that the Tribunal ought to have directed the official respondents to send signature of Mr.Sivalingam for Forensic analysis, as the petitioner has paid the amount of Rs.3500/- to the said person. Therefore the order of the Tribunal is liable to be quashed and the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with full backwages, continuity of service and all other service benefits. 4. Therefore the order of the Tribunal is liable to be quashed and the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with full backwages, continuity of service and all other service benefits. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 would submit that on 13.02.2013 at about 10.45am when the BPO was inspected by mail overseer there was a shortage of Rs.16,899.35 and the same was reported to the Inspector of Post, in turn, the Inspector of Post immediately reached the BPO and verified the accounts and he had also found that one Electronic Money Order (EMO) dated 03.10.2012 for Rs.3,500/- which was payable to one Sivalingam was shown as paid in the BO Account by forging the signature of the payee. The payee further informed that he had not received the EMO as claimed by the petitioner. As the lapses were serious in nature, the applicant was issued with a charge memo under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011. The petitioner denied the charges, he was given all opportunities for adducing evidences, after conducting detailed enquiry and after giving opportunity to the petitioner the disciplinary authority removed the petitioner from service. The petitioner was removed from service on the basis of the charges proved against him and there is no reason for interfering in the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority and also the findings rendered by the Tribunal. 5. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. The petitioner joined as Gramin Dak Sevak as Branch Post Master in Thavalaveeranpatti Branch post office on 03.04.1988. On 13.02.2013 at about 11.30am one Mr.C.Saravanan, Mail Overseer, Manapparai Sub Division came for surprise check, he verified the cash and stamp balance and found that there was shortage of cash for a sum of Rs.16,899.35. The said Mail Overseer intimated the said shortage of cash to A.R.Tamilini, Inspector of Post, Manapparai Sub Division, Manapparai and closed the Branch Post Office and took the custody of keys. At about 12.30pm, the Inspector of Post arrived Branch Post Office and started inspecting the alleged shortage of cash. On 28.02.2013, the 4 th respondent issued a charge memorandum regarding the alleged incident. 7(i). At about 12.30pm, the Inspector of Post arrived Branch Post Office and started inspecting the alleged shortage of cash. On 28.02.2013, the 4 th respondent issued a charge memorandum regarding the alleged incident. 7(i). The charges framed against the petitioner is reproduced hereunder :- Article - I “Shri A.Sankar, GDSBPM (POD), Thavalaveeranpatti BO a/w Tharagampatti SO 621 311 had been working as GDSBPM, Thavalaveeranpatti BO a/w Tharagampatti SO 621 311 with effect from 03.04.1988. While working as such during the visit of Shri C.Saravanan, Mailoverseer, Manaparai Sub division, Manaparai 621 306 on 13.02.2013 had kept office cash short by Rs.16899.35 (Rupees Sixteen thousand eight hundred and ninety nine/Paise thirty five only) and the same was Charged under UCP. The GDS made good the amount of shortage of Rs.16899.35, by crediting the said amount under UCR at Tharagampatti SO on the same day. Therefore It is imputed that the said GDS deviated note under Rule 11 of Rules for Branch Offices(Eighth Edition) and rule 17 stated under the caption "What a Branch Postmaster should do" in Rules for Branch Offices (Eighth Edition) and thereby falled to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of him vide Rule 21 of Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. Article - II That the GDS had been working as GDSBPM, Thavalaveeranpatti BO a/w Tharagampatti SO 621 311 with effect from 03.04.1988. While working as such the GDS had received one eMO bearing no. 116670121003559102 dated 03.10.2010 for Rs.3500/ booked at Tiruchirappalli HO payable to Shri P.Sivalingam, S/o Pichai, Veeramalalpatti, Thavalaveeranpatti BO on 08.10.2012 from his account office duly entered In BO slip. The GDS who received the money order, shown as paid to the payee concerned, failed to make payment of the same to the payee contravening the provisions of Rules 10(1) of Rules for Branch Offices(Eighth Edition) and thereby failed to maintain absolute Integrity and devotion to duty as required of him under Rule 21 of Department of Posts GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2011.” 7(ii). On 09.03.2013, the petitioner had submitted his explanation to the said charge memorandum. The 4 th respondent did not accept the explanation and appointed an enquiry officer. Before the enquiry officer, on the side of the department 20 documents were marked and 8 witnesses were examined. On 09.03.2013, the petitioner had submitted his explanation to the said charge memorandum. The 4 th respondent did not accept the explanation and appointed an enquiry officer. Before the enquiry officer, on the side of the department 20 documents were marked and 8 witnesses were examined. On behalf of the petitioner herein, 2 witnesses have been examined and 3 documents were marked. 7(iii). On 13.12.2013, the enquiry officer has submitted his findings wherein it has been held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The 4 th respondent issued notice seeking response to the findings of the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his representation to the enquiry officer's report and requested to drop all further proceedings. On 30.12.2013, the 4 th respondent considered the said representation and accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed a major penalty of removal from service with immediate effect. Aggrieved over the order of removal, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal dated 09.01.2014 before the 3 rd respondent seeking to set aside the order and requested to reinstate into service with all consequential benefits or impose some other lessor penalty owing to long years of service. 7(iv). On 13.03.2014, the said departmental appeal was rejected on the ground that the misdeeds of the petitioner was grave in nature and therefore, the penalty imposed on the petitioner was found to be justified. Accordingly, in exercising the power conferred under Rule 18 of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011 hereby confirming the penalty issued by the disciplinary authority. 7(v). As against the orders passed by the 3 rd respondent and the 4 th respondent, the petitioner preferred in OA.No.1139 of 2014 seeking to set aside the order of removal and reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 7(vi). The Tribunal finding that it was the case of the department that money order receipt was fabricated and the misappropriation of money was found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer and there is no reason to disbelieve this version. The enquiry officer has properly conducted the enquiry and given all facility for conducting the defence of the writ petitioner and there is no violation of procedure brought out to show that the enquiry was vitiated and dismissed the original application. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition before this Court. 8. The enquiry officer has properly conducted the enquiry and given all facility for conducting the defence of the writ petitioner and there is no violation of procedure brought out to show that the enquiry was vitiated and dismissed the original application. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition before this Court. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Rule 11 of Rules for Branch Offices, which permitted the concerned Gramin Dak Sevak BPO to keep safe custody of the cash at their discretion, but contrary to the above said rule, the action imitated by the Mail Overseer is not proper. 9. At this juncture, it is relevant to reproduce Rule 11 of Rules for Branch Offices. “11.Custody of cash. – (1) It may not be necessary to supply a safe to every extra departmental branch office, but one may at the discretion of the Supdt. Post Offices be provided on the report of the S.D.I. supported by the recommendation of the S.D.I. (2) When a safe is supplied to a branch office, the cash, postage stamps, articles in deposit, stamps and seal, and in short, all articles of value including money order forms should be locked up in it, special care being taken to lock up insured articles in deposit and the B.P.M. should keep the key or keys on his person by day and night. The greater portion of the stock of postage stamps of the office should always, even during the day time, be kept inside the safe, and only the stamps required for a day’s sales, or half a day’s sales should be taken out at a time. Note. – All G.D.S.B.P.Ms whether their offices are provided with iron safes or not should make their own arrangements for the safe custody of cash and valuables on their own responsibility. They are at liberty to keep the cash and valuables wherever they like provided that they are available when required and that, when called for, they can be produced for inspection within the time required for going to and coming back from the place where the cash is kept for safe custody.” 10. It is also relevant to reproduce Rules 10, 13 and 21 of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 :- “10. It is also relevant to reproduce Rules 10, 13 and 21 of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 :- “10. Procedure for imposing a penalty.- (1) No order imposing a penalty shall be passed except after (a) the Sevak is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegation on which it is proposed to be taken and given an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make; and (b) such representation, if any, is taken into consideration by the Recruiting Authority: Provided that the penalty of dismissal or removal from engagement shall not be imposed except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges: Provided further that where it is proposed after such enquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such enquiry. (1) The record of proceedings shall include- (i) a copy of the intimation to the Sevak of the proposal to take action against him: (ii) a copy of the statement of allegations, along with a list of evidence in support thereof, communicated to him: (iii) his representation, if any: (iv) the records of the enquiry proceedings along with the enquiry report of the Recruiting Authority or Enquiry Officer, if any, appointed in a case where a formal enquiry is necessary: (v) the representation, if any, of the Sevak on the Inquiry Officer's report: findings of the Recruiting Authority in respect of the allegations, with reasons therefor; and (vi) findings of the Recruiting Authority in respect of the allegations, with reasons therefor; and (vii) the order imposing the penalty. 13. Appeal (1) A Sevak may appeal against an order putting him off duty to the authority to which the authority passing the order regarding putting him off duty is immediately subordinate. (2) A Sevak may appeal against an order imposing on him any of the penalties specified in Rule 9 to the authority to which the authority imposing the penalty is immediately subordinate. 21. General Every Sevak shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty.” 11. (2) A Sevak may appeal against an order imposing on him any of the penalties specified in Rule 9 to the authority to which the authority imposing the penalty is immediately subordinate. 21. General Every Sevak shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty.” 11. The petitioner was engaged as GDS BPM with effect from 03.04.1988, as such on 13.02.2013 at about 10.45a.m. the BPO was inspected by the Mail Overseer and verified the cash and stamp balance and found shortage of office cash to the tune of Rs.16,899.35. The Mail Overseer reported the matter to the Inspector of Post. Inturn, the Inspector of Post rushed to the Branch office immediately and verified all accounts of Branch Office and found that an EMO dated 03.10.2012 for Rs.3,500/- payable to one Sivalingam by forging the signature of the payee. 12. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent/department in paragraphs 5 and 6 wherein it has been stated as follows :- “5. It is submitted that Consequent upon the above lapses on the part of the petitioner, Shri.A.Sankar gave written statement before the Inspector Posts and admitted his guilty. Then he voluntarily credited the shortage of cash Rs.16899.35/- into Post Office account under unclassified receipt dated 13.02.2013 at Tharagampatti Sub Post office vide receipt no. A629. Further he credited Rs.3630/- being the amount of misappropriation of eMO along with penal interest under unclassified receipt on 14.02.2018 at Tharagampatti Sub Post office. 6. It is submitted that as the lapses on the part of the petitioner were grave in nature, a charge sheet under Rule-10 of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 with the articles of charge of (i) keeping shortage of office cash and (ii) non-payment of amount of eMO which was shown as paid in office account, was issued against the petitioner vide 4th respondent's memo. no. F1/VI/04/2012-13 dated 28.02.2013 by giving him an opportunity to submit his written statement of defence within 10 days of receipt of the charge memo.” 13. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the post office building was in damaged condition which was directly attributable by the petitioner and the petitioner had kept the cash in his house. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the post office building was in damaged condition which was directly attributable by the petitioner and the petitioner had kept the cash in his house. If the above contention of the petitioner is to be acceptable, then the petitioner would have been brought to the notice of the superiors about the condition of the post office building, here there is no such communication that the post office building was in damaged condition. 14. On perusal of the records reveals that the respondent/department was acted upon, as per rules envisaged under Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 and also reveals that as per counter filed by the respondents/department in para 5, that the petitioner himself gave written statement before the Inspector of Posts and admitted guilty, then he voluntarily credited the shortage of cash and also credited the amount towards E-money order. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner the department was acted contrary to Rule 11 of Branch Rules is not acceptable one. 15. It is settled law that the preponderance of probability is enough to prove the charges framed against the delinquent official in the departmental proceedings, and the standard proof is not required as in the case of criminal proceedings. The case in hand before us, that the enquiry officer arrived at his findings that both the charges framed against the petitioner were proved with reference to the oral and documentary evidences produced during the course of enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority/4 th respondent agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed the punishment of removal from Gramin Dak Sevak engagement. The Tribunal finding that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner, the findings of the enquiry officer was based on oral and documentary evidences and the punishment imposed by the authority concern found justified with reference to the gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner. The irregularities committed by the petitioner is grave in nature and he has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required under Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules which deserved a deterrent penalty. As such, the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority/4 th respondent is fully justified and it is well commensurate with the gravity of charges. 16. As such, the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority/4 th respondent is fully justified and it is well commensurate with the gravity of charges. 16. It is relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Manu/SC/0052/2023 – Union of India (UOI) and others V. Sunil Kumar wherein it was held that :- “6.2. Even otherwise, the Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal passed on proved charges and misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination and giving threats to the superior of dire consequences on the ground that the same is disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. In the case of Surinder Kumar (supra) while considering the power of judicial review of the High Court in interfering with the punishment of dismissal, it is observed and held by this Court after considering the earlier decision in the case of Union of India v. R.K. Sharma; MANU/SC/0621/2001 : (2001) 9 SCC 592 that in exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate. As observed and held that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review Under Article 226 or 227 or Under Article 32 of the Constitution.” 17. By applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, to the facts of the case on hand, it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal, said to be strikingly disproportionate and warranting the interference by this Court. As we do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal and there is no merits to consider the case of the petitioner, hence writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. In the light of the detailed discussions held supra, the findings of the Tribunal is hereby confirmed and the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.